"Well, there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution"
Fine. Then in order to overturn Roe v Wade a court would have to issue an opinion to that effect. Do you think some future U.S. Supreme Court will say there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? How well will that be received by the public in light of the Patriot Act? What will happen to the sodomy laws?
"Factually speaking, it pretended there were divisions in pregnancy that have no medical basis."
I don't believe the court said there was. The first, second and third trimesters were guidelines as to when a state could claim a "compelling interest" in the life of a fetus.
If you're saying that abortion is always murder, and that the U.S. Supreme Court should conclude this, then there is no possible way to turn the decision over to the states, as many suggest.
"Also, Roe relies on the oxymoronic construction of 'substantive due process'"
Roe and many others. It's a tool used by the court to "incorporate" some specific 9th amendment right and make it applicable to the states.
If not the court, then who would you have identify these numerous and vague 9th amendment rights and say they belong to the people? The government? Do you want the government assigning rights?
Now, we could pass an amendment for every right we identify (we did that for slavery and suffrage), but that would have the appearance of turning the U.S. Constitution into a limited list of rights -- if it's not there, you don't have it.
We need to repeal the 14th amendment for what the court has done with the due process clause. It has destroyed federalism. But that is a topic for another day.
"Well, there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution"
"Fine. Then in order to overturn Roe v Wade a court would have to issue an opinion to that effect. "
No, they don't. Don't have tie for detailed debate but one of my points was - no, overturning Roe v Wade does *not* require finding that 'there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution'. Roe v Wade goes far beyond that claim.
"Do you think some future U.S. Supreme Court will say there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? "
No, they will overturn Roe by 'trimming the sails' of the concept and application in an area where it never belonged.
Those trimester guidelines had no medical, legal or constitutional basis, and were concocted out of thin air by the activist author of the decision. Blackmun was known as a second rater, and Roe proved it. Advances in medical technology have made a complete joke out of his 1973 assertions and assumptions.
If not the court, then who would you have identify these numerous and vague 9th amendment rights and say they belong to the people? The government? Do you want the government assigning rights?
The courts *are* the Government. Dont you recall your '3 branches of Govt' in civics? Apparently you want Federal courts deciding the rights that exist at the state level, overrridding the will of the people as expressed in state law. If rights are clear, fine, but when it is just a 'blank check', you've given a blank check of huge power to the courts. By letting courts decide on these things, you in effect turning the courts into a super-legislature, with no chance for appeal or democratic process to correct when the courts become imperial tyrants.
That's unsound constitutional law and unsound political practice. Put the genie back in the bottle and stop legislation from the bench. Overturn Roe. It's bad law.