The fate of Roe v. Wade and choice (editorial by Obama campaign advisor)

The Boston Globe ^ | September 14, 2008 | Cass Sunstein

[Clintonfatigued]

Roe v. Wade has been established law for 35 years; the right to choose is now a part of our culture. A decision to overrule it would not only disrupt and polarize the nation; it would also threaten countless doctors, and pregnant women and girls, with jail sentences and criminal fines. As Ginsburg has also urged, Roe v. Wade is now best seen, not only as a case about privacy, but also as involving sex equality.

No one should disparage the convictions of those who believe that abortion is an immoral act. But after more than three decades, a decision to overrule Roe v. Wade, and to throw an established domain of human liberty into turmoil, would be anything but conservative. It is relevant here that many people, including McCain running mate Sarah Palin, believe that abortion is unacceptable even in cases of rape and incest, and there is little doubt that if Roe is overruled, some states will enact that belief into law.

For the future of constitutional rights, there is a broader point, which involves the fragility of many constitutional principles. Of course the Supreme Court tends to move slowly, but some conservatives who speak of "strict construction," and of "legislating from the bench," have something quite radical in mind.

For them, these are code words. They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions. For example, they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action, to invalidate environmental regulations, to increase presidential power, and to reduce the separation of church and state. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains.

[Paleo Conservative]

DemocRATS wouldn’t be in such a bind if they hadn’d aborted millions of future DemocRAT voters over the last 35 years.

[TWohlford]

The Left is a one-issue party. This election is all about those SCOTUS justices. The screams you hear — usually targeting Palin — have more to do with a sense that Roe will be overturned if the Liberal candidate doesn’t win this election.

[wk4bush2004]

No, the overturn of Roe v. Wade will help save the lives of MILLIONS of unborn children!

There’s no other way to say this: the Roe v. Wade decision needs to go back to the pits of hell where it came from!

Since 1973, America has slaughtered over 50 million babies. Enough is ENOUGH!!!!! It needs to stop!

Abortion is not part of our culture; it was forced upon us by a bunch of liberal activists. Abortion is not about “women’s rights” or “choice”; it’s about Planned Parenthood making $$$.

Abortion is homicide and America’s Holocaust. It must end NOW!!!!!

[workerbee]

As always, it all comes down to dead babies for the Dems. Every argument, every issue, every everything. Everything they say and do is predicated on the almighty liberal sacrament of abortion.

[Cementjungle]

The Left is a one-issue party. This election is all about those SCOTUS justices. The screams you hear — usually targeting Palin — have more to do with a sense that Roe will be overturned if the Liberal candidate doesn’t win this election.

This is true. Their past fear of Reagan and both Bush's were rooted in their same fears.

What's worse, is these people think Roe V. Wade is a "law". They don't understand the difference between a court ruling and a law. Ignorance is tough to combat.

[CE2949BB]

They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions.

Not at all! It's only about electing the President and Vice. Nothing more, we promise!

[sauropod]

Cass Sunstein is more than just a Obama political advisor. Wasn’t he involved in the defense of His Slickness just a few short years ago?

[grey_whiskers]

Remember McCain's appearance on The View?

"Should I be worried about being a slave or a return to slavery," Goldberg asked.

They're trying to "Bork" her.

(Good luck with that one.)

[Enchante]

"As it was written in 1973, Roe v. Wade was far from a model of legal reasoning, and conservatives have been correct to criticize it. The court failed to root the abortion right in either the text of the Constitution or its own precedents. Moreover, it ruled far too broadly."

Let's be more concise, Mr. Harvard Professor: The majority simply made up a "right" to accord with what they wished had been in the US Constitution.

[Erik Latranyi]

PLEASE LET US KEEP KILLING BABIES!

[kjenerette]

...But after more than three decades, a decision to overrule Roe v. Wade, and to throw an established domain of human liberty into turmoil, would be anything but conservative...

Domain of human liberty? There are two very much human players directly involved in a single abortion - which domain can 'do more harm' and 'throw' more turmoil?

The answer is clear, one human represents a temporary 'inconvience' on the others liberty and the other represents the termination of all liberty forever to the second.

Do these people even read what they write?

Abortion is the ultimate 'mother of all' destruction of all Liberty!

Katherine

Katherine Jenerette

[Enchante]

Wondering why Prof. Sunstein has only an “informal” advising relationship to the Obama campaign? Probably b/c he is married to Samantha Powers, yes the one who had to resign from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary a “monster”..... it might have become a bit awkward among the Democrat tribes to have Mr. “Hillary is a Monster” Powers in a formal relationship with the campaign this fall.

“Informal” advisor probably just means he shoots them a memo or email when he feels like it.....

[boroman]

Pro-choice and Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with “sex equality.” All I ever hear on the issue is about it being “a woman’s right to choose.” What about a man’s rights? If you follow the logic of the liberals, men should have an equal right to choose, or not choose.

[generalhammond]

Abortion is an initiation right and an important recruiting tool by leftists (ie the Democrats). By agreeing to an abortion, the grief stricken young woman is emotionally distraught, grief stricken and ripe to receive leftist “love” - inner “peace” can only be found when one becomes part of the flock for life. Your lifelong guilt makes you the most ardent advocate for abortion, relativism and every other BS liberal principal because they keeps you a safe distance from the truth lurking within your conscience. All’s fair eh - viva la revolution and all that.

[spodefly]

Please check my math here:

Roe was passed in 1973, by a Supreme Court that consisted of 6 out of 9 Republican appointed judges.

In the 35 years since it’s passing, Republican Presidents have occupied the White House for all but 12 years.

Number of times there has been a serious challenge to Roe in that 35 years = 0.

So what exactly are the Democrats selling here? And who is buying it?

[at bay]

It should always be stressed that the Roe case law was based on a fraud that even the plaintiff in the case admits. Every conservative reading this post should be familiar with it. If not, by all means research it.

The case overturned merely means abortion law is once again up to the states. At worst, a woman contemplating murdering her unborn might have to travel to another state to find a hit man/”doctor”.

Greyhound has great roundtrip rates. I don’t recommend Amtrak because the old tracks make for a bumpy ride, and the baby....oh wait, it won’t matter, it’s his or her last ride.

[Jim Noble]

They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions. For example, they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action, to invalidate environmental regulations, to increase presidential power, and to reduce the separation of church and state. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains.

You bet your ass we do!

1) Affirmative action: Unconstitutional XIV

2) EPA and children: Unconstitutional uncompensated takings

3) Increase Presidential power: Incoherent. The President has unlimited power within his domain, and none without, already.

4) Reduce separation of church and state: No such thing. Everson and children all wrongly decided.

[Salvation]

Democrats CANNOT vote Catholic. And CATHOLICS cannot vote democrat. Reason? The Democratic Party has a plank in its platform supporting abortion. Any Catholic who votes for this killing is excommunicating themselves from the Catholic Church by not upholding Catholic principles as well as Biblical principles/ (Remember the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill."

Bishops have warned Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy et al that they cannot support abortion. So even if you vote Democratic you are supporting abortion. Thus the Bishops have warned you as well as the politicians.

I believe more Bishops will speak out this week, so look for an updated list!

Updated: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi's comments so far:

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
2. ... Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
4. Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website...
5. ... Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
6. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and...
9. ... Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice ...
11. ... Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
13. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB's efforts
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
16. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
17. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
18. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi's statement
19. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
20. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
21. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
22. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
23. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I've read
24. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"
25. Bishop Glen Provost, LA: "Catholic Church clear on when human life begins"
26. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn: "Judging the Candidates"

{Last updated on September 10th.}

Notes:

• Previous #23 has been removed. Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, NC is actually the bishop emeritus, and the new bishop, Michael Burbidge has not, to my knowledge, made a personal statement.
• Previous #16 has also been removed, it was an erroneous duplication of current #13.
• #26 was added September 10th, although he published his column September 6th

[Salvation]