Getting Beyond Roe: Why returning abortion to the states is a good idea

Reason Magazine ^ | August 8th, 2007 | Radley Balko

[Delacon]

“Turning abortion back to the states may be our best chance for now, but our work is not done until this entire country recognizes the right to life of the unborn person as specified in the Declaration, Preamble, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment.”

Which is my point for this federalist article.

[Coleus]

The Unalienable Right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the 5th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution. The federal government should ban abortion.

Large populated states like CA, FL, NJ, NY and MI most likely will not outlaw abortion.

[Lexinom]

The way to solve that dilemma is to ask the simple question: Which ought to have the heavier weighting, federalism, or the right to life as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? Anything more complex than that amounts to sophistry and manipulation of reality/science.

[Delacon]

“The Unalienable Right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the 5th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution. The federal government should ban abortion”

No. Find for me expressly in the Delcaration, the 5th, and 14th one mention of the yet born. Find it in Roe v Wade for that matter. In short, find for me outside of state jurisprudence(where this issue should be decided) rights to the yet born. In other words, find for me in anything in federal jurisprudence that defines what life is. The states have all kinds of things to say about it, god love em. And be careful what you wish for. Do you really want the federal government defining what life is?

[Lexinom]

A) They are making inalienable rights subject to the whims of particular states, thereby completely negating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are destroying the union - and the explicit reasons for our union.

Hence for very similar reasons you had the War Between the States.

Even those of us engaging in reasonable discourse must ourselves enjoy the right to life.

Reagan summed it up this way: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

This is a no-brainer, folks.

[Pinkbell]

Thank you! :)

[Lexinom]

The definition of life should not be that complex, and hence should not even be a topic of discussion: You have what in philosophy is termed a "substance" - an organic whole which develops dynamically according to some intrinsic principle that begins at the completion of the process of conception. The dynamic process itself answers the question about life. That life is human from the get-go. How so? In a rationalistic sense, those of us who are born and aged attribute characteristics of "humanness" as it begins to look more and more like us. Our attribution, however, does not change the objective, empirical fact of humanness. And that is the problem: some people would shape reality by their impressions.

It is "self-evident" (to borrow language from our Founders) from past experience that a pig, plant, a rock, a Ford Explorer, are not human, do not contain the same intrinsic law-like principle of development into a human being. A pig embryo does not contain the princple to develop into a human being.

Therefore, any imposition of some artificial rubicon of "personhood" from non-personhood must be rooted in subjective impressions not garnered from objective scientific observation. Such impositions stand in opposition to the smooth, dynamic nature of the development itself, which contains no sudden jumps. There is no sound reason apart from nefarious utilitarian ends (read "sexual revolution") to formulate abortion policy in a manner that differs from that nature.

[Coleus]

Find for me expressly in the Delcaration, the 5th, and 14th one mention of the yet born. Find it in Roe v Wade for that matter. >>>

you can say the same thing about the New Testament. So I guess that abortion is OK since, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus and the Pauline letters never mentioned abortion and the unborn.

Since you say “the states have all kinds of things to say about it,” tell me what NY and NJ state say about the unborn and when life starts? Thank you.

[Delacon]

“Since you say “the states have all kinds of things to say about it,” tell me what NY and NJ state say about the unborn and when life starts? Thank you.”

Well I don’t know specificly about what NY or NJ(my least favorite states) have to say about it but many states have wrestled with the legal issue whereas a pregnant woman gets murdered and if its a dual homicide or not. Its street level legal issues like this that will be decided at the state level and will win the hearts and minds of the people in the long run on the whole issue. States have landed on it being a dual homicide usually btw.

[Delacon]

I agree up to a point. I think at the moment a sperm joins with an ovum it is not a human being. It is still part of a human being. At some point though, it becomes a human being, and in my opinion(a guy who has seen his kids sonagrams) way before it comes down the vaginal canal. This is my opinion. I know many of you disagree. If you live in my state, we can sit down and argue over it because its important to our community that we establish some standards. But I wouldn’t presume to try to enforce my beliefs on CA, MO, MS, NY, or frickin NJ. I would like it if over time my pov in my state aided a consensus that led to other states copying it.

[BlackElk]

That's Michigan. How, short of federal action against abhortion after Roe vs. Wade is done away with, will we avoid turning NYC, LA and Chicago into the abortion mills of the nation. If the SCOTUS had not shoved abortion down the throats of the entire nation, there would not have been a culture of death permeating the entire nation. Now, only a national solution will stop abortion.

There is a constitutional solution to this mess. Regard each chld conceived as a "person" under the Equal Protecton of Laws provision of the 14th Amendment and every state will be REQUIRED to behave accordingly and protect that child from homicide just as it does those children already born. We already have state statutes (upheld by fedcourts) that make the killing of an unborn child by a party lacking the mother's consent a criminal homicide. The mother's consent or withdrawal thereof does not make the unborn child a person or not a person. Protect each unborn child in every case where there is not a credible imminent physical threat to the literal life of the mother. "If I can't get an abortion, I will kill myself" is NOT such a threat.

[trisham]

Abortion policy, then, is about drawing lines and setting community standards.

**************

Abortion is murder. Period.

[MrB]

Actually, “true conservatives” understand that there really isn’t any need to “legislate” morality as long as you remove the power of the government to make one person pay for the consequences of another’s immoral behavior.

The consequences of such behavior are enough to thwart the behavior, at least after a few examples are brought forth.

[BlackElk]

Since libertarians have generally aligned with the babykillers, it should not surprise them when conservatives do not bother to try to accommodate the kneejerk libertarian desire to do what they please regardless of morality with the conservative desire to end babykilling. "Small government" won't stop bank robberies, carjackings, rapes or babykilling. It is NOT a universal solution. Libertarians have forfeited any standing with conservatives by cheerleading the babykilling under the guise of "small government." La Rand was sooooo far out that she actually endorsed Gerald Ford (generally no libertarian icon) because he supported babykilling and Ronald Reagan did not.

Reason Magazine is a good source of arguments against lifestyle naziism like anti-smoking laws or in favor of free market solutions like unregulated jitneys as a cheaper and more efficient transportation system than Ron Paul's beloved trolleys and buses but libertarianism has few real solutions to major problems. If libertarians think that the world would be better off under libertarian solutions, then let us by all means advance the little stuff like jitneys and property rights for restaurant and bar owners to allow or not allow smoking on their own property and then advance libertarianism on similar matters until it becomes something of a default position.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Thank you. I am so tired of these people hiding behind a partial explanation of federalism to explain their lack of concern for the unborn.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Thank you for your clarity.

[sittnick]

How, short of federal action against abortion after Roe vs. Wade is done away with, will we avoid turning NYC, LA and Chicago into the abortion mills of the nation.

Who knows? Pre-Roe, New York's legislature repealed their own permissive abortion law, but the bill was vetoed by Nelson Rockefeller.

In war, and this IS a war, one can gain a tactical advantage by forcing the enemy to retreat to narrower and narrower quarters. Having to go from, say, South Dakota to Minneapolis will likely deter some abortions.

When a dozen or so states outlaw abortion in a post-Roe world, their ground troops can focus on the remaining states, and probably pick off a half-dozen more. The pro-aborts don't have the numbers to pray, picket, protest, lobby, etc. They do have a lot more $$$, but they are not gaining with the young even with pretty much unimpeded access thrugh media and schools.

The recent court decisions may not stop so many abortions short term. However, it does establish the principle that it is not an unlimited "right." Now that this is in play, we can argue that this so-called right should be more restricted. At some point with God's help, sicne this is largely a spiritual war, critical mass is achieved, and the whole thing is undone bloddlessly. If Daniel "the Red" Ortega can flip on this (whether it was a real or convenient conversion, I will let God decide), anything can happen.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[dirtboy]

A Constitutional amendment respecting the right to life for the unborn should be a priority of any moral people.

A Constitutional Amendment would require ratification by 3/4s of the states. Which means NY, CT, MA, VT, ME, HI, CA, NH, OR, WA, WI, MD, MN, AK and IL could prevent ratification - that's 15 states that I think would be difficult to get to vote for ratification. And other states would still be bound by Roe until ratification.

If you overturn Roe and return it to the states, you can start getting abortion outlawed in conservative states. Immediately. And if you get close to 3/4s of the states to outlaw or severely restrict abortion, at that point you push for a Constitutional Amendment, since you will have the states lined up for ratification.

[billbears]

Abortion is murder. Period.

Indeed it is. Remind me again, don't the separate and sovereign states each have laws against murder and other crimes against those within their state?