Pelosi: Roe v. Wade Ruling ‘Not an Extreme Position’ — It Was a ‘Compromise’

Breitbart ^ | 05/06/2022 | Pam Key

[joma89]

We must never ever compromise with the criminals in the democrat evil party.

[Chewbarkah]

I might get flamed for this, but I separate the merits or demerits of abortion from a consideration of the Roe v Wade ruling. The ruling is based on the 10th Amendment, and is entirely libertarian, in keeping with the Constitution’s vision of limited government and expansive rights of the People. In this view, government has no power to limit an individual’s choice to have an abortion, because the 10th Amendment reserves all rights and powers not specifically granted to the federal government, to the People.

Per Roe, individuals have inherent rights including the right to privacy in their personal medical choices. Thus ObamaCare, mandatory vaccinations, etc., are clearly unconstitutional — so long as Roe upholds the 10th A. You are correct that Congress has NO power to legislate regarding abortion. I argued during the rise of ObamaCare that Roe obviated the entire enterprise. Unfortunately the politics of abortion meant that no one tested ObamaCare by using Roe. IMO, Roe is an important decision that we should all insist be applied consistently, while dealing with abortion at the Amendment or State level where it belongs. Arguing against individual freedom is poison for all (those who believe none of us have fundamental rights will hardly accord any to the unborn).

[hanamizu]

“The ruling is based on the 10th Amendment, and is entirely libertarian, in keeping with the Constitution’s vision of limited government and expansive rights of the People.”

---

I see your point. However, if I’m not mistaken, abortion was illegal just about everywhere when the 10th Amendment was drafted and ratified and remained so for about 200 years thereafter.

The question might well turn on whether one’s private choice inflicts harm on another. Since a successful abortion always takes another’s life the argument based on the 10th may well fall apart in a way that say bans on contraceptives doesn’t.

[Chewbarkah]

I’d argue that the 10th Amendment has not been applied correctly in many areas, yet that does not render it void. It was really not until the mid-20th century when “women’s liberation” (and mechanized farming) made children a liability, that the demand for abortion began to grow in America. We are in the middle of some very warped times.

Whether life begins at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between is the critical question, and one that courts and legislatures seek to avoid, partly because it is at heart a personal religio-philosophical judgment and partly because they hope technology will make the question moot.

Some people (e.g., John F. Kerry) hold both that life begins at conception, and that abortion should be legal anyway. Ugh.