Posted on 05/16/2022 2:47:24 PM PDT by jfd1776
Abortion has been at the forefront of American politics for 50 years, ever since the Supreme Court chose to nationalize the issue in Roe v. Wade, declaring that the federal government, as constructed by the Constitution, did indeed have a role to play in the question.
The Court, as expressed by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, determined that state laws against abortion may conflict with an expectant mother’s Constitutional “right to privacy” – a concept not actually found anywhere in the Constitution, but created for Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. Under Roe v. Wade, the federal government can therefore split a pregnancy into three arbitrary timeframes – trimesters – in each of which, the states have various limited latitude to restrict the procedure.
In 1992, after twenty years of ridicule, the Court finally admitted to the illogic of the arbitrary trimester distinctions in their decision on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Here, they largely replaced the trimester concept with the idea that fetal viability should be the key point at which states and the federal government trade primary authority. And now, in 2022, with the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s 98-page draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it looks likely that our nation’s abortion laws will be changing again.
Abortion has appeared in America’s law books now for 200 years (Connecticut’s 1821 law against abortion is believed to have been the first such restriction)… and it has been a huge political issue for at least the fifty years since Roe v Wade nationalized it, so there probably isn’t much new to say about it. Perhaps a few brief reminders, however, might be helpful...
FETAL VIABILITY There has always been an undercurrent of thought that a logical time to change the rules on abortion is the moment of fetal viability. The theory can be studied from both directions – the point of view of the person who wants to empower the expectant mother to terminate her pregnancy, and the point of view of the baby who just wants to live.
Both pro-abortion and pro-life advocates have attempted to use this argument to their advantage. “The baby can’t live on his or her own, so naturally it should be up to the mother.” Or... “The baby can’t live on his or her own, so naturally we need government to look out for the child’s interests, especially if their own parents can’t be counted on to look out for them.”
There are two key problems with this line of reasoning.
1. Government’s obligations should really not be based on how much the affected parties “need” government. It’s no more or less legal to mug a weightlifter than a little old lady; it’s no more or less legal to embezzle from a conglomerate than from a family restaurant. Either the act is objectively deemed a crime or it isn’t. So, if killing a child is, well, killing a child, then it shouldn’t matter whether he or she is four months along, six months along, or nine months along at the time of the attack.
2. The concept of fetal viability – the ability of the child to survive outside the womb – is ultimately flawed because this date is a moving target. A century ago, children would usually die if born a couple months premature, at, say, 28 weeks. But as medical science has improved, that number has improved along with it, by about a week every ten years since Roe was published. It has turned out, in fact, that fetal viability is a measurement of medical science and technology, not a fixed moment in the development of a child. Should children of identical age be viewed differently under the eyes of the law, just because one lives near a modern hospital and another does not?
For these reasons, so-called fetal viability has become a less and less convincing determinant, over the years since abortion became a political issue. All sides really have to admit that there simply is no magic moment at which a pre-born child is noticeably “changed”...
As soon as the child is implanted and begins to develop, the DNA is distinct. The die is cast on whether the child is a boy or a girl, a blonde or brunette or redhead. There are fingerprints by nine weeks, brainwaves by 42 days, a heartbeat by 18 days.
To look at it another way... if a mountain climber is dangling off a cliff by a rope, is he less deserving of legal protection because he’s dependent on that rope than if he were hiking on a trail without such support?
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
Fifty years ago, when Roe v Wade shocked the country, the American public was divided on the issue of abortion. Like many of the contentious political issues of the day, polling always indicated a considerable mix across the country: about half thought that abortion should be legal under certain limited circumstances, about a quarter thought that it should be legal and largely unrestricted but still be considered undesirable and discouraged, and about a quarter thought it should be illegal in all circumstances.
Fifty years later, the polling remains essentially unchanged from this.
So, for that reason, different states take different approaches, reflecting the opinions of their citizens. While Roe v. Wade has restricted the laws that each state could pass, even under the Roe regime, states could enact certain restrictions, and many have, protecting at least as many children as they could without federal opposition.
The key challenge with the issue, however, has always been in the way that the aforementioned “will of the people” has been interpreted. When people told their state legislatures they wanted abortion to be legal but discouraged, the Left always took that as a license to encourage it. So, the incredibly small minority that truly likes abortion – the abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, the eugenicists like Margaret Sanger and Lawrence Lader – managed to get their way, despite holding such a minority position.
Why? Because there really is no way to “legalize but discourage” a thing like this. Either it’s legal or it isn’t... and once it’s legal, a business will grow up around it to develop demand... and that’s exactly what happened.
In studying the polling over the past fifty years, in fact, it’s rather amazing how little the needle has moved on this issue, even as the American population has changed dramatically in size and demographics.
Public opinion remains similar, but the stated goals of the Left have moved wildly over the years:
First, the abortion lobby said they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.”
Then, through the talking points of their politicians and pop culture advocates, they gradually moved the goalposts. To be tolerated to an extent, but not approved. Then to be tolerated completely, but not approved. Then to be approved but not encouraged. Then to be encouraged, but certainly not funded by the taxpayer.
And now the abortion advocates have reached the ultimate conclusion: insisting that abortion be both encouraged and taxpayer-funded.
No wonder, then, that the people have grown more vocal in their opposition to the status quo.
The people have changed little on these matters, over the years. Even those who accept the idea of abortion as an unappealing option sure don’t think it’s anything to champion, but there are politicians, pop culture icons, and other such narcissists who somehow manage to try to make it sound like a positive, appealing choice.
More and more, we see actors and activists, professors and politicians, proudly shout out to the cameras how many abortions they’ve had, and how proud they are of them.
And normal people – even the ones who have always told pollsters they agree that it should be “safe, legal and rare” - are horrified at the sight.
Every time such a speech makes the nightly news, it weakens the abortion lobby’s case that much more. Thank Heaven.
THE CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM
Eventually, if the leaked reports are true and Roe v. Wade is finally overturned this year, it will not be the earthshaking shock to the system that the Left portrays.
There are countless thousands of moral and legal questions on which the federal lawbooks are silent, not because they don’t know what’s right or wrong, but simply because these are not national issues.
It’s illegal to go 20 mph over the speed limit in your residential neighborhood; it’s illegal to steal your neighbor’s lawnmower, your teacher’s cellphone, or your alderman’s bicycle. But none of these are federal laws; they are local ordinances or state laws.
It’s not just about the little things either; we leave most crimes, big and small alike, to the states. Robbery, rape, murder... these are state crimes, handled by the local police and prosecuted through the state court system. Until 1973, abortion was in that class. This doesn’t mean it’s unimportant; it just means that our system believes it’s a crime best defined and managed at the state level.
We enjoy a wonderful blessing in these United States of America: a constitutionally limited government. There are things we want the federal government in Washington to decide and manage for us; everything else is none of their business, The rest is left to the states, counties, towns, and the people themselves.
Abortion had been such an issue, until January 22, 1973. With the revocation of Roe v Wade, it will be again.
This isn’t to say life will be easier, or politics will be cleaner, with Roe v. Wade off the federal lawbook. Both sides have been preparing for this day for fifty years. And if people really want it to be federalized, they can try writing a Constitutional amendment – in either direction – to federalize it legitimately.
The dirty little secret, rarely admitted by any but the most principled conservatives, is that Roe v. Wade never made any sense at all. We all knew from the beginning that it was bad law, founded in imaginary “emanations and penumbras” rather than on any legal text. So, it was always in the cards that, someday, an honest Court would have to overturn it.
Our Founding Fathers never intended for the federal Congress, Executive, or Judiciary to meddle in every aspect of our daily lives. They believed that most government – both most representatives and most decisions – should be close to home.
If and when Roe is overturned, our state governments will finally be fully empowered to attempt to codify the genuine will of the people in our state codes.
They could hardly do a worse job of it than the federal government has.
Copyright 2022 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based trade compliance trainer and transportation manager, writer and actor. A one-time county chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he has been writing regularly for Illinois Review since 2009.
A collection of John’s Illinois Review articles about vote fraud, The Tales of Little Pavel, and his 2021 political satires about current events, Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes One and Two, are available, in either paperback or eBook, only on Amazon.
Save the taxpayer a ton of money just sterilize yourself
But thats exactly what would likely happen if abortion was turned back to a state by state issue. Which is why the leftists hate the idea and are lying their collective arses off over it.
The Federal law allows them to continue to move further away from "safe, legal and rare" towards "any time, any where and for any reason".
the crowds cried, “Give us Barabbas”, too, didn’t make it right...
The AI, Abortion Industry, isn’t going to give up your money without a fight.
Bring it.
When the overturn RvW, it will be MAGA great day.
>> [many] proudly shout out to the cameras how many abortions they’ve had, and how proud they are of them.
Biblical psychosis
Looks like he's been reading my posts.
Looks like this guy has been reading my posts. :)
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2022/05/abortion-and-the-will-of-the-people.html
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
The Supreme Court's misguided (imo) decision in Roe v. Wade, along with probably most federal domestic policy, including taxing and spending, is unconstitutional imo and arguably shows post-17th Amendment ratification, unconstitutionally big federal government disrespect for state sovereignty imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the congressional record, a statement concerning the 14th Amendment by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of that amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, in stark contrast to the Court's emphasis of the reasonably clear 10th Amendment (10A) in the United States v. Butler excerpt above, using inappropriate terms like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices politically "repealed" it a few years later in Wickard v. Filburn, wrongly deciding that case in Congress's favor imo.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Also, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
Agreed. I do believe that the biggest mistake in civics education in America is the emphasis on the clever design of the federal government… The checks and balances between states and federal, between legislative and executive, between House and Senate, etc.… To the exclusion of the purpose that these checks and balances were put there for.
Limited government.
At every level, not just at the national level.
Idiots today, and probably for the last century, talk about the states being laboratories of democracy… Where you can have one state be small government, another state big government, another state be something in between, and everybody could see how all that works.
Humbug. The framers never dreamed that we would have a country in which anybody would ever think that big government was a good idea.
The whole point was to keep every level of government as small as it could possibly be.
And after 130 years of it working well… They pass the 17th amendment and turned our entire system upside down.
https://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm
Commission on Population Growth and the American Future 726 Jackson Place, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20506
March 27, 1972
To the President and Congress of the United States:
I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.
After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.
The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.
To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.
Respectfully submitted for the Commission,
John D. Rockefeller 3rd Chairman
Nixon’s reply…
…While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.
In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.
I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves…
Twenty eight months after expressing his opposition to unrestricted abortion policies to being infused into the American culture, Nixon resigned. Eleven days after the resignation, Ford nominates Nelson Rockefeller for VP.
Watergate. Riiight.
Wow. Thank you. I’ve never seen that.
Man.
Your welcome. Please share.
Great Dot Connection, MurrietaMadman- Here’s more for the Timeline:
1) JD Rockefeller3 Population GRowth Commission Report: March 27, 1972
2) Richard Nixon’s written response to Rockefeller’s Population Commission Report: May 5, 1972
3) Watergate Break-in to the DNC Headquarters: June 17, 1972
3) Nixon wins in a landslide with 60.7% of the Popular Vote and 520 Electoral Votes to McGovern’s 17 : November 7 1972
4) Nixon is sworn into office: January 20, 1973
5) Roe v Wade SCOTUS Decision: January 22, 1973
6) Spiro T. Agnew resigned as Vice President: October 10, 1973 - Gerald Ford chosen to replace Agnew
7) WAtergate Hearings: February 7, 1973 -June 27, 1974
8) Nixon resigns: August 8, 1974
9) Gerald Ford becomes President: August 9, 1974
10) Nelson Rockefeller, brother of John D Rockefeller3, becomes VP: December 19, 1974
Pretty slick ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.