I’m not sure this guy really understands Roe. Even before Roe, abortion was legal in certain states, CO, CA, and NY, for example. Before Roe, abortion was not unconstitutional. It was simply up to the states. And if Roe were reversed, it would not become unconstitutional. The decision to allow or prohibit abortion would merely revert back to the states, as it had been for nearly 200 years.
If you read this article, you’d think that the Court decided in Roe that life does not begin at conception. The truth is that the law has never recognized that life began at conception. There were legal cases on the books back in Colonial times that said a fetus does not become a person until birth. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the states can regulate abortion even though the fetus is not a human being, according to the law. In Roe, the Supreme Court said “no.”
How they got that out of the Constitution, though, is beyond me. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from regulating abortion, and the states did regulate abortion for nearly 200 years, without any controversy. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a right to have an abortion.
“There were legal cases on the books back in Colonial times that said a fetus does not become a person until birth. But that is not the issue. “
Cite them.
“There were legal cases on the books back in Colonial times that said a fetus does not become a person until birth.”
As expected, you cannot cite them because their existence is a myth-one that you repeated and should correct.
Not even the proaborts and all their cronies, on or off the court, could find any such “legal cases.”
Try reading the “decision” for yourself before making such false statements.
” Even before Roe, abortion was legal in certain states, CO, CA, and NY, for example.”
That’s true, but by the time the Court decided Roe in 1973, the tide had turned against abortion. Not a single state further liberalized its abortion laws after 1970, and in fact, New York’s state legislature actually voted to REPEAL its abortion-on-demand legislation in 1972, only to be vetoed by Nelson “Blood on hands” Rockefeller.
Given that the public was turning away in revulsion from liberalized abortion laws by 1973, it’s quite possible that without Roe, state laws would be generally restrictive, with perhaps a few exceptions, and most of the nearly 50 million dead children of the past 35 years would not have been murdered.
As well, as the article points out, in 1973, technology hadn’t quite yet shown us the wondrous nature of pre-natal life. There was some, if only a little, excuse for thinking that the unborn child was a “blob of tissue.” This lie is no longer excusable to anyone whatsoever at all.
Now is the time to push for complete legal protection of the unborn.
But that can’t start until Roe is overturned.
It’s only the first small step in a long road, but it IS the first step.
sitetest
“There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a right to have an abortion.”
I agree.
Not really an accurate summary of history. Abortion has been illegal, and almost universally considered immoral, in the US throughout our history. And in western civilization long before that.
The dam began to break in a few states not long before Roe v. Wade, yes. But it was part of the same leftist revolutionary movement, expressed earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized contraception—also illegal everywhere in the US until the “sexual freedom” modernizers got to work on it.
The Constitution is not silent on abortion, or neutral, any more than it is silent or neutral on marriage. It’s just that people took these things for granted for 2000 years, and then suddenly the rules were changed. No one thought that marriage had to be defined as only between a man and a woman, because that was too obvious to need saying.
The constitution protects the right of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether that includes the unborn is a matter of debate, but it can be argued that unborn persons are included in the word “person” in the constitution. Conservative jurists have argued the matter, and it is probably something we will have to debate in the future.
But, meantime, Roe v. Wade was clearly an unconstitution exercise of sheer power that reversed the common consensus of law and morality of centuries.
“Because I could,” clinton once said. A tyrannical SCOTUS said much the same thing, in Roe v. Wade. Because they could.