If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/15/2005 5:03:05 AM PDT by joesbucks
Many in the Evangelical, pro-life and other cultural conservative camps have seen the latest vacancy on the Supreme Court as THE appointment that will finally tip the philosophy of the Supreme Court far enough right to present a case that could overturn the bitterly divisive Roe vs Wade court decision of the 70's.
Certainly there are many sides to this complex issue that has torn the country for over 30 years. A reading of the Supreme Court decision offers an amazing writing that draws not only from the 14th amendment and what has been termed the right to privacy, but from many other amendments from various parts of our Constitutional Document.
Those on the Pro-life side have a strong argument for prolife perspective. Many who have no side in this argument have allied themselves with this prolife side of the movement because of it's strong life postion.
The question is, if Harriet Miers is the nominee and subsequent justice that the pro-life movement has been waiting for all these years, and the court does have a case that adequately challenges the presumptions of Roe vs Wade, then what?
Most in the pro-life movement seem to believe that the decision would return to the states. In many situations, it may be impossible for most states to move anti-abortion legislature to law.
Is there a plan B in place that would guanantee the removal of the abortion blight from our landscape once Roe is overturned? IF so, it hasn't been widely touted.
Yet if there isn't a plan B, there seems to be much ado about nothing in getting Roe reversed.
From a conservative position, I don't believe the desire to overturn Roe has anything to do with whether or not abortion remains legal at any stage of pregnancy. It has everything to do with who should be making our laws. Elected representatives, accountable to the voters, or unelected unaccountable judges with life appointments.
Miers has stated she believes abortion is murder.
I agree with your assement from a personal perspective, but the movers and shakers in the prolife movement worry about the life aspect first and the procedure second. Their firt priority is life.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
That's my question. As a matter of fact, most in the prolife movement even advance that idea, that it really wouldn't matter since many state would allow it. Yet so much energy has been expended overturning it. Thus my question, what is plan B, what is the next strategy to eliminate the practice.
Overturning Roe Vs Wade would not necessarily have to be based on a woman's right to privately murder her children, just as long as she did it before the end of the first trimester. It could just as easily be based on a decision as to when life begins. Does life begin at conception, or does God only recognize it after it has been in existence for three months?
That might make her a good pick for legislator, but I don't want a judge to overturn Roe, just based on her own policy preferences, that legitimizes the original Roe decision.
I want a judge that is going to read the constitution as written and apply the original intent of the founders regardless of her personal polciy preferences.
And abortion isn't the only issue out there. What about the takings clause, what about campaign finance restrictions. If you pick a judge because she will vote the way you want just because she agrees with a particular policy, it will come back to haunt you.
Look at the lefties, they loved the court abusing the commerce clause to expand it's power as long as they were advancing liberal clauses, but when the same thing was done to strike down medical marijuana laws, the hippies were howling about judicial activisim.
Bottom line, with many many candidates that have openly over many years echoed the Scalia, Bork judical philosophy, why to we have to gamble on another Souter?
Trust me the President says. I say, "Just like I trusted you on immigration and government spending."
However, overturning Roe v. does not automatically revert the issue to the states. For example, a future court, maybe this one, might follow the path used for other death-penalty situations and impose an onerous appellate process on the question. States could then do whatever they wished, but the USSC's interpretation of "due process" would certainly extend beyond the 9 month period of concern and thereby moot out any conceivable state action.
Another route the USSC could take would involve a determination of relative rights depending on the duration of the pregnancy ~ you could see the trimester nonsense created in Roe v. metastasized into a day by day evaluation of levels of various chemicals found in amniotic fluid, and each level bracketed by formulas imposing various elements of applicable Constitutional rights found in the text as well as assorted penumbras and emanations!
Liberals and Democrats could be left gasping for breath with that one ~ a regulatory excess that even the worst of the mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerkers in their number could sense.
No doubt there are still other approaches that would keep abortion out of the hands of the states.
She may turn out to be a great justice. But if she isn't an origanist, we would still have the problem of justices making laws based on interpreting personal policy preferences, instead of applying the law.
It would have to be a Constitutional Amendment, and I don't think that there are enough States who would ratify it. Sad, but true.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
"Isn't it true that in many States, abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade?"
I think elective abortion was legal only in NY & Cali before R v W. it is likely to be kept legal in many states if R v W is overturned, but it will be illegal in many also. Probably all the bible belt states will outlaw it. And my guess is that many restrictions, such as parental notification, etc. would be put in place even in states it is legal.
Also, it may cease to be seen as the greatest thing since sliced bread, that alone would be an improvement.
Concur. Roe vs. Wade is just a small part of the liberal abuses of the Constitution that need to be reversed. Hell, MOST of the FedGov has no Constitutional authority.
Your statement is correct. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion is returned to the states. It does not make abortion illegal in the USA at large but leaves it up to individual states to decide.
Dang, creating live links is a pain.
Again, my point. Why so much energy, money spent, arguments created, fought and sometimes to bloody ends when it really doesn't change the landscape unless there is a Plan B that no one talks about.
Plan B is then for each of the individual states to answer the question for themselves. Many will ban the practice. Others will not, and in those states the fight will continue.
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.