Posted on 05/28/2019 10:43:27 AM PDT by rktman
“Erwin Chemerinsky”
If you want a hard leftist legal opinion on anything, all you have to do is ask this clown. If you hear his name, you can give his viewpoint even before he opens his pie hole.
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Amendment XIV
“These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’”
Roe v Wade, majority opinion
recognizably human - ~12 weeks
animated - ~5 to 6 weeks for a beating heart
“An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion ‘with a view to its general suppression.’ It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of ‘this general demoralization’:
“The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime — a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.
“The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .
“The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection.”
Roe v Wade, majority opinion
Do note the terms “inherent rights”, “personally” and “protection” with respect to a fetus expressed in an AMA writing as of 1859, prior to Amendment XIV.
Yes, but the good news is that the Dems want to extend the vote to babies.
= = =
Well, to save unborn lives, grant voting rights at the time of conception.
Those ‘clumps of cells’ got to voice their outrage, you know.
“It is a fact that 88% of the abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy while only 1.5%...occur after 21 week of gestation.”
https://www.womenhealthzone.com/womens-reproductive-health/late-term-abortion-facts/
not at all unconstitutional.
a ridiculous statement from Bezerkeley
Consider the source.
You best know of the concurring opinion of Justice Stewart:
“MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
“In 1963, this Court, in Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 , purported to sound the death knell for the doctrine of substantive due process, a doctrine under which many state laws had in the past been held to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. As Mr. Justice Black’s opinion for the Court in Skrupa put it: ‘We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.’ Id., at 730. 1
“Barely two years later, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , the Court held a Connecticut birth control law unconstitutional. In view of what had been so recently said in Skrupa, the Court’s opinion in Griswold understandably did its best to avoid reliance on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the ground for decision. Yet, the Connecticut law did not violate any provision of the Bill of Rights, nor any other specific provision of the Constitution.”
....
“’Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).’ Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).”
Roe v Wade
indeed. i did not sign up for studies at Bezerkeley because it is so crazy a place, plus filthy as your city dump, plus the one professor who knew the subject i was to study... was, still is....brilliant in his field but a TOTAL IDIOT in his active political life, a real flake
Tell us Comrade, what part of the Constitution supports abortion?
Strictly speaking, given CURRENT Supreme Court precedent, he is correct.
Will the US Supreme Court use this to do the constitutional thing and return abortion law to the states? I don’t know. I do feel 100% certain that 4 of the judges will vote it down. And I’m not confident on Roberts, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
“Law dean”??? STFU, you LIB nitwit ghoul.
In my opinion, babies after 12 weeks [a crown-rump length of about 9 cm] must be protected by the states as per Amendment XIV because they are persons that are recognizably human and have beating hearts under the majority opinion of Roe v Wade.
He is only a professor at UC Berkley. Not worth much!
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.