Posted on 03/18/2002 1:19:17 PM PST by Keyes For President
You are correct, of course. Leaving morality aside, Roe V. Wade is just plain bad law. It should be overturned on legal principle alone.
Of course, abortion is morally indefensible and the right to life must be protected for all, especially the unborn who cannot fend for themselves.
Here's one more!
Blackmun based the majority opinion on just this, he stated that there was no consensus on when life began because he knew that the Constitution acknowledges the right to life and its primacy over liberty and property.
President Bush understands this which is why he is moving slowly but inexorably toward defining the unborn as persons. It is a good strategy and I commend him for what he is doing.
Blackmun based the majority opinion on just this, he stated that there was no consensus on when life began because he knew that the Constitution acknowledges the right to life and its primacy over liberty and property.
President Bush understands this which is why he is moving slowly but inexorably toward defining the unborn as persons. It is a good strategy and I commend him for what he is doing.
I believe that you mean the 9th and the 14th amendments to the Constitution. The 5th Amendment deals with the rights of criminal defendents, i.e. the right against self-incrimination, right to counsel, etc.
How disgusting is it that Jill Stanek discovered live-birth abortions at Christ Hospital outside Chicago? Still gives me chills....
patent
How does a baby plead the 5th? Just Kidding:)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
In the Roe case, the issues at hand were whether or not the Texas statute, outlawing abortion, violated Jane Roe's rights under the 9th and the 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Blacknum said:
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific r. co. v botsford, the Court has recognized that a right of personal prvacy, or guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exhist under the Constitution....This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
So, as I stated before, I still interpret this case to revolve around the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
You do realize if you place the emphasis on "from" and not "conception", this phrase could be a mantra of the abortion lobby. ie conception is the enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.