Posted on 07/22/2005 5:06:41 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
Edited on 07/22/2005 5:19:39 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Having learned the lessons of the Bork fiasco, when Teddy Kennedy libeled Robert Bork on the floor of the Senate within minutes of Bork's nomination -- a speech that became the reference point for the entire nomination fight -- this White House put its new man out front first. The television tableau was perfect. President introduces attractive, boyish-looking, hornless judge to the nation, with wife in the wings and two adorable kids in tow. A John Edwards moment.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It's always a risk, but Roberts appears to be a very low risk for turning lib once named to SCOTUS. I think the prez has chosen well.
Roberts will end up more or less as conservative as Rhenquist. At worse he'll be a pro-life, male version of O'Connor and at best a muted Scalia.
I'm afraid I'm less optimistic. I tend to believe that we're given record-free social libertarians on purpose by the GOP - people who won't rattle the cage on issues like abortion, et al.
I'd also be willing to bet he's a "personal pro-lifer" who'll uphold Roe. We have nothing to suggest otherwise that Roberts is willing to take personal ownership of.
I pray to God almighty that I'm wrong.
I think it's safe to say he will be no Souter. But beyond that, CK is correct in saying the record is thin. I'm comforted that Jay Sekulow of ACLJ strongly supports Roberts, but I'm still a bit nervous.
I couldn't agree more. Roe V Wade being directly revisited could turn into a disaster. The more likely and IMO effective means would be to make it crumble by attacking it through various components. I say go after PBA first, maybe as cruel and unusual? That is essentially how most bad precedent will need to be overturned.
One thing that needs to happen IMO to overturn these poorly decided social issue opinions is to attack the "science" that is used for the basis of many of these horrible opinions as suspect at best. They must use other studies showing the opposite effects, not as as a bases for their opinions but to counteract the ability of the progressives to base their decisions soley on such baloney.
Another interesting issue associated with pick
President Bush's selection to replace Roberts. Its potentially another solid Constitutionalist in the system.
Dear Archon of the East,
" I couldn't agree more. Roe V Wade being directly revisited could turn into a disaster."
Why?
"The more likely and IMO effective means would be to make it crumble by attacking it through various components."
The jurisprudence of the past 32 years has only shown us the boundaries that the Supreme Court has declared, and these boundaries essentially protect, under the penumbrae of Roe, abortion on demand. We can dicker about waiting times, about informed consent, about parental notification (But not even parental consent for major surgery!), etc., but the Supreme Tyrants have made clear that Roe protects each and every abortion, each and every abortion-procurer, and each and every murdering abortionist up to and including the moments of delivery.
No meaningful restrictions can be placed on abortion in the United States without the Court overturning Roe. You want to dial back to permitting pretty much only 1st trimester abortions? No can do without overturning Roe. You want to give parents the same authority in the lives of their 12 year-old daughters regarding abortion, as they have regarding dispensing an aspirin? You gotta overturn Roe to get there. You want to outlaw, let's say, abortion for sex selection? Not without putting a stake in the heart of Roe.
Roe, with Doe vs. Bolton, and the rest of edifice of "abortion rights" built on the foundation of Roe by the Black Robed Monsters over the past 32 years, protects each and every abortion imaginable in the United States.
If Roe v. Wade is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.
Roe must go.
sitetest
What if happens to be upheld?
I understand what you are saying but there is much more to this IMO than just "the decision". One the rejection of Natural Rights is the root of it. It is a culture that doesn't recognize the unborn as life based on no higher authority than human will. Establishing first that abortions after the first trimester are in fact killing life will help reverse the mindset of death. That being said, maybe your right as far as approach. And your definitely correct in that ultimately Roe has to go. Remember Many people aren't definitive in principle, they listen to both sides. Unfortunate but true, we must consider that reality.
This is just dumb. Roe must go like cancer must go. You can't always just cut it out. If you don't know that you can kill a business through regulation around the edges you don't know much about business. Abortion is a demonic busines and can be attacked as such.
Dear Archon of the East,
"What if happens to be upheld?"
News flash! It's been upheld. Bits at a time, and whole hog. That's essentially what Casey was about.
"Establishing first that abortions after the first trimester are in fact killing life..."
Already been done.
At least scientifically, if not legally.
And for a lot of folks, establishing it legally is all that will count. I can't recount how many times some idiot has told me that abortion should be legal because the Supreme Court made it legal. Well, if the Court were to overturn Roe, then that argument, for all the morons in America, would be vitiated.
The law has teaching power. You talk about natural rights, and the lack of respect for them, but what is amazing is that after 32 years of Roe, our legal regime on abortion, which is as extreme and coercive as any in the world, has NOT stamped out knowledge of the natural law in the United States! After 32 years of legal abortion on demand, somewhere north of 60% of the people STILL believe that abortion should be legally limited to the "exception cases."
And that number is growing!
Overturning Roe will also have the profound cultural effect of knocking out the social underpinnings for the pro-death folks. Most folks who think they live in a good and decent society want to believe that the law is righteous. Thus, they do what mental gymnastics they need to justify Roe, as, if Roe is unjust, then that suggests a pretty huge defect in American society, and a lot of folks don't want to go there.
That effect, the effort to reduce cognitive dissonance caused by Roe, doubles back, with Roe then creating a social legitimacy for legalized abortion on demand that would otherwise not exist. Overturn Roe, and the cognitive dissonance disappears, and the protective effect of Roe disappears, and our society will become even more pro-life.
Roe must go.
sitetest
Dear Rippin,
"This is just dumb."
Why is it dumb? The Supremes have used Roe to justify overturning as unconstitutional the ban of partial birth abortions. Banning "abortions" that are infanticide of the just-about born is pretty much at the very limit of any kind of meaningful restrictions. Yet, the Court ruled, in light of Roe, that it was not permitted by Roe.
"Roe must go like cancer must go. You can't always just cut it out."
Well, I agree. Roe IS like cancer. But with cancer, if you can't cut it out, radiate it out, or kill it chemically, it will kill you. Good analogy. One way or other, Roe must be killed.
"If you don't know that you can kill a business through regulation around the edges you don't know much about business."
Well, having successfully run my own businesses now for 20 years, I might differ with that. In any event, the Court has sufficiently cordoned off a "right" to abortion on demand that the "restrictions" that it has permitted to be applied to abortion will not "kill" abortion.
Roe must go.
sitetest
Like I said dear FRiend , you may be right and I am willing to fight with you on this issue.
First, congrats on your business. Not sure what field it is but clearly you know how much of that precious margin can be eaten up by regulatory requirements. Look at what you said above. It would be my understanding (no lawyer here) that the court could overturn their decision on partial birth abortion without overturning their decision on Roe. If I'm wrong on that, I take it back. If I'm right, then you see what I mean.
Roberts' wife has been a soldier in the pro-life trenches. Do you really think she will "let" him uphold Roe? I couldn't imagine the scene at home!!
Dear Rippin,
"Not sure what field it is but clearly you know how much of that precious margin can be eaten up by regulatory requirements."
If applied evenly, across an industry, most businesses will just eventually work it into the cost of doing business. If prices rise a bit, demand may slacken a bit, and a few marginal businesses in the given industry may very well fail. However, regulation at the margins just doesn't give me much concern.
One regulation that I must obey is that I must conspicuously post certain governmental notices in my place of business. Costs me some wall space and thumbtacks. Because my company is very small, and we don't have an HR dept to track this stuff, I splurge $30 to buy a pre-packaged set of posters that accounts for all current regulations. That's regulation at the margins. No, that doesn't drive folks out of business. Not usually. Not a healthy company.
Conversely, the ADA is regulation that goes to the heart of a business, in that it can directly interfere with who a business may hire, and how much the business may be forced to put out to "reasonably accommodate" the hire. In my business law class, in pursuit of an advanced degree in management, our instructor, a sitting California state judge, told us that the "accommodation" required varies from case to case, and an accommodation that might cost a few thousand dollars will almost certainly be considered "reasonable," while in some cases accommodations costing tens of thousands of dollars may be considered reasonable.
THAT isn't regulation at the margins, but regulation that strikes at the heart of the business, in that it interferes with a basic function of business - who should be hired to do the work - and makes entirely unpredictable the actual costs of labor. Yes, that kind of regulation can put businesses out of business.
But the Court has, in upholding Roe, always banned regulations that would have that effect. In fact, the rule used by outgoing Servant of Satan O'Connor was that ANY rule or regulation or law that had the effect of causing an undue burden on the ability to obtain an abortion was automatically unconstitutional.
"It would be my understanding (no lawyer here) that the court could overturn their decision on partial birth abortion without overturning their decision on Roe."
Well, I'm not a lawyer, either. However, the Court previously ruled that the basic holding of Roe prevents a ban on partial birth abortion, because it puts an undue burden on the exercise of the abortion "right."
Now, I suppose that the Black Robed Tyrants can make it up as they go along, and they could say tomorrow (or in October, actually, if there were a case before them) that, no the previous Court was wrong, you can ban partial birth abortions, but it doesn't implicate Roe at all.
However, even that wouldn't matter much, as partial birth abortions account for perhaps as much as 1% of abortions, annually. As well, the abortionists would just switch to a different methodology of late-term abortion, as the Court has made clear that no one may touch the right to abort up to and including the beginning of delivery of the baby - uh, fetus.
Now, if the Court were to, say, change its mind, and say, no, well, the states actually may pretty much ban most 3rd trimester abortions, call it what you will, but that would be vacating a very large chunk of Roe/Doe, because even though Roe gives lip service to the right of the states to restrict 3rd trimester abortions, Doe (Doe v. Bolton, the same-day companion ruling to Roe) vitiates any ability of the state to do so. Any ruling which permitted significant restriction even of only 3rd trimester abortions would rightly be understood as a partial overturning of Roe, even if the Supreme Moral Horrors didn't call it that.
Even there, over 90% of abortions are in the first and second trimesters. If the Court were to permit serious restrictions of 2nd trimester abortions, that would actually cut into the very language of Roe itself, not just Doe. That would be a very large partial overturning of Roe.
Even there, I think around 80% of abortions are, nonetheless, performed in the first trimester. To touch those, you pretty much have to entirely vitiate the holding or Roe. Whether you want to call it "overturning" or not, effectively, Roe would no longer apply.
The Court, as well, has weighed in on other ways of trying to limit abortion, such as requiring that abortions be performed in hospitals, by licensed doctors. The Court has held, consistent with the logic of Roe, that these restrictions are unconstitutional because it unduly burdens the absolute constitutional right to abortion on demand.
Thus, even to regulate abortion around the edges, we would have to partially overturn part of the case law and rulings that surround Roe. Even to require that only a doctor may perform an abortion. Even to require that one must have this surgical procedure performed in a hospital.
The Black Robed Enormities also understand that the power to regulate can be the power to destroy, and they have done much to protect their constitutional bastard child - the "right" to procure the murder of one's unborn child - even from the most ineffectual regulations.
Even so, abortion is an extremely profitable business.
Those sorts of regulations may make the margins fall from 90% or more to perhaps only 50%. A practicing full-time abortionist might only make $400,000 per year instead of $500,000 per year. The killers will cut some more corners where they can, pay fewer taxes (Many abortionists run cash-and-carry businesses, and many former abortionists say that tax evasion is rampant in the business.)
The guy out in California who owns a chain of abortuaries might see his $25 million annual income drop to $20 million, but because there is just so damned much money in the business, just so damned (and I literally mean damned) much money to killing babies, that even regulations that go beyond the margins - like changing who you can hire to do the work, and changing where the work must be performed - will not significantly affect the availability of abortion in most of the United States.
No, we're not going to be able to "regulate" this industry to death in most of the United States.
If the Court were to reverse itself, and permit some of the restrictions which have previously been ruled unconstitutional, but not permit any change that would implicate the central holdings of Roe/Doe, perhaps the numbers of abortions in the US might fall by as much as 5% (abortions might get a little more expensive, and thus, demand might fall a little). Which would be better than nothing. But which would still leave about 1,150,000 per year dead.
Roe must go.
sitetest
1. Is it legal for anyone other than a physician to immediately perform an abortion?
That could be required.
2. Is a separate certification required for abortion?
That could be required.
3. Are there any mandatory reporting requiremnts?
That could be required.
4. Are there any regular record reviews?
That could be required.
5. What type of malpractice insurance is required for abortionists?
It could be required that they get insurance that covers all obstetric services. In otherwords no abortion riders.
6. Is it legal for med schools to require abortion training?
That could be outlawed.
7. Are there minimum staffing levels for abortions to be performed (as there are for many "health care" services?) Those could be required.
Remember, if Roe is overturned, it goes back to states and few states will outlaw all abortions. All of these types of baby steps will need to be taken even if Roe goes.
And yes the eventual reversal of Roe may not be declared as such. I don't believe Brown v. BOE technically overturned Plessy, but that was the effect.
I hope, but do not know, that Roberts will be there with us at every step.
Dear Rippin,
1. I'm not sure, but I think that's already been established - no you can't require it. However, nearly all abortionists are licensed physicians, so the effect approaches zero.
2. I doubt it could be required, in that it would be a restriction that would be aimed directly at abortion.
However, in that most abortionists do a lot of abortions, I doubt it would make any difference. Lots of industries thrive with licensing standards.
3. Big deal. Again, lots of industries thrive even with reporting requirements.
4. Again, big deal. Again, lots of industries thrive even with regular review of reporting.
5. I'm not sure that many of them don't already have full insurance, as many abortionists are also gynecologists/obstetricians. Neglible effect.
6. I don't know that any med schools do require abortion training. If so, it's very few. Such a law changes the status quo nearly not at all. No effect at all.
7. Courts have so far knocked down things like this, as being incompatible with Roe. Even so, most facilities already have significant staffing, in that it appears to increase the number of abortions performed. Lots of abortuaries have plenty of folks on hand to "counsel" the prospective "clients" to assure they don't walk out the door before plunking down their bucks.
Overall effect is it might drive up the cost a bit, but overall effect is likely negligible.
" Remember, if Roe is overturned, it goes back to states and few states will outlaw all abortions."
Gee, I hadn't ever argued otherwise. In many ways, consigning Roe to Hell (whence it came) is only the beginning. Of COURSE we must then work in the political process to win back rights for the unborn.
But even JUST overturning Roe will have significant positive effect. Even JUST overturning Roe, all by itself, will reduce the annual rate of abortion more than all your "baby steps" put together.
A significant number of states have significant restrictions on abortion that will take effect AUTOMATICALLY if Roe is overturned. Depending how you read the statutes, somewhere between 15 and 20-something states will have AUTOMATIC restrictions that go way beyond anything you've suggested. The laws are on the books.
Some of these laws in some states were even passed post-Roe, to take effect automatically upon the vacating of Roe. These folks have done this even with Roe in place!
As well, then the political process can work. Then, lots of folks in lots of red states will support laws like, "No abortions except in cases of rape, incest, genetic deformity, life of mother, serious physical health of the mothe."
In which case, those states will eliminate 96% of all abortions.
We'll also have states, like NY and CA, with abortion on demand.
But before Roe, there were perhaps 100,000 abortions per year in the US. Now there are about 1.2 million. If Roe is overturned, overnight, the number would decline substantially, and automatically.
And because the political process could actually work itself out normally, the 65% of Americans who say that abortion should only be permitted in the above-mentioned cases would prevail in many, perhaps most states, and the number of abortions would be reduced to a fraction of the current number.
But none of that will happen until Roe is overturned.
Your "baby steps," of themselves, do nearly nothing. Well, that's not quite true. These "baby steps" do manage to pacify a lot of pro-lifers into thinking that they constitute real progress. Other pro-lifers become persuaded that they can be substitutes for overturning Roe.
They can't.
As I said, I've never stated that overturning Roe gets us to where we want to go - no, it's really a starting point. But read my tagline:
"If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law."
Without overturning Roe, we really can't protect any children at all, in law. Without overturning Roe, the law is prevented from recognizing any rights of the unborn child.
Roe must go.
sitetest
Judge Roberts has been a pretty consistent advocate for allowing state legislators to legislate. I think he will vote to uphold state bans on partial-birth abortion, parental consent laws, waiting period laws, and other laws narrowing abortion rights. The vast majority of mildly liberal, "pro-choice" women will not care about these votes, although NARAL will scream. Eventually there will be a challenge to a state law that allows the Court to finally overturn Roe. Remember, the Court cannot just announce they are vacating Roe. They have to get a case that allows them to do it.
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.