Roe v Wade only broadly decriminalized abortion. I have no problem with that under current (insufficient) definitions and those who take the other extreme are beating a dead horse in promoting a neverending political conflict and, as Tomi states, spit on the Constitution.
The first part of your reply is correct. Abortion is not a "right".
But you are dead wrong about the second point. The whole reason for the debate is that the SC in 1973 did indeed wrongly claim that abortion was a "Constitution Right". They made it up from whole cloth using a nebulous "penumbra" argument tied to the "right to privacy" which is also not in the Constitution.
Mincing words, IMHO. The problem here is that SCOTUS is not absolute on this and admits as much in its own decision. Congress failed to act for reasons we could debate ad nauseam, but are patently-obvious: It’s a great political argument.
One interpretation of the decision is as follows:
The Court agreed with Roe and held that “the right to privacy includes the abortion decision.” The Court emphasized that abortion rights were not absolute. “The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy…[I]t is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.” States could not ban abortion during the first trimester, but as pregnancy progressed, the Court held, the state’s interest in protecting life could begin to outweigh the woman’s liberty. Therefore states could restrict the procedure later in pregnancy.
I find no fault with that interpretation, but I do have a problem: Deifying RvW has hamstrung the ability of the States to regulate abortion as prescribed by RvW. The fault of the Court was multi-faceted in denying rights to the fetus while ascribing a fictional right as a result of a biased interpretation of the definition of “life”. That definition can be clarified for the States by Congress and override certain elements of RvW, in particular the fictional “right” to abortion, an over-broad term which requires redefining.
Simply, RvW is defective in form simply because you cannot grant a right not guaranteed by the Constitution on the basis of a narrow set of rules which usurp said “right”.
A direct analogy would be restricting 1A rights of religion as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except for those not worshiping God.”
That’s equivalent to SCOTUS defining life during the 1st trimester for the purpose of their assigned “right”: Who defines what is God?
Congress could easily have addressed this pathetic, tragic abomination of Judicial malfeasance decades ago; they chose not to do so in the name of stoking political divide.
How’s that working out for everyone? 2 extremes do not make a right or a wrong; they only make for perpetual conflict...
...a tragic stalemate on this battle front where the only real casualties are the only ones who, ironically, have no rights in this country whatsoever.
It wasn’t until Dec. 1973, ironically, before the first process was perfected which led to the “personal pregnancy test”. We are in a new era, which includes the “morning after pill”. Lack of personal responsibility has piled upon bad decisions leading to histrionic emotional outcry to justify deifying RvW and its defective premise at the expense of innocents, all due to lack of action on one group of people:
Thanks for nothing, Congress.
And no, I’m not wading into the ‘activist Court’ debate...other than to state that SCOTUS should have “interpreted” the Constitution and laid this at the feet of Congress.
.02