Roe v. Wade fits my personal beliefs (1st Trimester legal, 3rd illegal), but it was a lousy and Unconstitutional ruling.
Roe v. Wade fits my personal beliefs (1st Trimester legal, 3rd illegal, 2nd states rights). But it was a lousy and Unconstitutional ruling that invented law from the bench, imagining powers in the 14th (100 years after the fact) that the authors and ratifiers disagreed with. It violated the 10th and 11th. It polarizing us. And it stopped abortions legal growth.
Roe was a BAD ruling. But Planned Parenthood v. Casey made it a far worse decision (3rd trimester legal, which collided with Roe). Most legal scholars have admitted that Roe was a lousy ruling. It made the nation a worse place. And repealing it would do nothing to the places that are outraged over the thought, since that would just push it back to the states (which had already legalized it).
💭 Summary
Abortion is a deeply personal view, and I have no problem with how people come down on it, as long they're honest. Roe fits my personal beliefs (1st Trimester legal, 3rd illegal), but it was on Unconstitutional ruling that invented law from the bench by imagining powers (penumbras) in the 14th Amendment that the authors/ratifiers disagreed with, it violated the 10th and 11th, it dividing us and stopped the progress that was happening at the state level.
Then Planned Parenthood v. Casey made it a far worse decision (3rd trimester legal, which collided with Roe).
Most legal scholars (include Ruth Bader Ginsberg have admitted that it was a lousy ruling, and it made the nation a worse place. And repealing it would do nothing to the places that are outraged over the thought, since that would just push it back to the states (which had already legalized it).
In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an Illegal abortion, but the unauthorized facility had been closed down by the police, so she had the baby and put it up for adoption -- and later McCorvey repented being involved in the case at all, and became a pro-life activist. But at the time she became involved with Coffee and Weddington, who (in 1970) filed suit on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). A three-judge panel declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and that got appealed up to the Supreme's -- which found a different excuse for overturning the law.
Harry Blackmun was one of the most progressive (least constitutional) justices on the Supreme Court and is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, which prohibits many state and federal restrictions on abortion. Before that, we obeyed the constitution, which said that if it isn't in the Constitution, then it's not a federal issue and left it to the states to decide.
It helps to remember that:
Before Roe: 37 States had already passed laws legalizing abortion, and the others were on track to legalize it as well
There were no mass deaths due to coat hanger or back-alley abortions -- that's a myth spread by the far left.
The most restrictive states are far more liberal with abortion laws than most of the countries in Europe. France, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, etc., all require more checks and don't let as late term of abortions as the U.S.
If the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it would fall back to the states to decide and no state would outlaw abortion. Some might put a few more restrictions on when/how. The left plays this as "bringing back the coat hangers".
In the end, the Roe ruling was that when it comes to whose life (rights) we need to protect, basically that:
1st Trimester, the right of the mother supersedes the baby -- and she can get an abortion
3rd Trimester, the rights of the baby need to be protected by the State -- no 3rd trimester abortions
2nd Trimester, we should leave it to the states and community standards.
I agree with all of that, by the way, I just disagree with Blackmun's authority to make the ruling. And that didn't last long. The later ruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey basically lowered viability from 28 weeks to 23 weeks, but it weakened regulatory leeway of the states in the 2nd trimester (stiffening protections for abortions up to 23 weeks). And even then, by strengthening "health of the mother" exemption, it meant that a doctor just had to invent whatever excuse he wanted for terminating a baby up to the moment of birth. In fact, they invented an "undue burden" clause that basically said any reasonable controls on abortion, could create an undue burden: even though most of the rest of the first world had more restrictions than we're talking about. (No spousal notification requirements. But they did allow 24-hour waiting period, parental consent or reporting requirements -- though Blackmun criticized those too, and leftist states just refused to require any of them).
I did a toastmasters speech (2008) on my views on Abortion.The video goes over most of the Abortion slides. But the slides/articles often have more details and support. The goal is not to attack other people's views, but to share information for those who want to understand the issue deeper.
The far left will misrepresent any reasonable restriction as trying to "take away a woman's right to choose" or "war on reproductive rights", the truth is most people (including Republicans) support abortion in the first trimester (especially in cases of rape/health of mother).
The real question is where are the reasonable places to limit abortions. The dems attack because they don't want to have to defend their fanatical position on the following: Spousal notification, Parental notification of minors, Informed consent, State/Community rights, Financing, Any limits. The left supports abortions of 40+ week full term babies (and beyond).
The EU is far more restrictive on Abortions than the U.S. So the progressives that claim the U.S. should be more like Europe, are usually ignorant or sometimes dishonest.
Roe and Casey were recognized as unconstitutional overreach in Dobbs (Mississippi) v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, "Finally repealing the horrible Roe Ruling". Roberts was lobbying for a compromise that might save Roe, but the Opinion Leak (likely by leftist activist), cemented the ruling and thwarted him.
Science says life begins at conception. Once two halves of the DNA join, you've got new DNA in a new living cell: that's life. Once that cell splits? It's a growing life. Period. Most humans start putting more value on that life with a heartbeat, brainwaves or viability (6-12 weeks). Most of the rest, put it at quickening (when Mom's can see/feel the activity). So abortion is a complex moral issue, but the scientific part isn't that fuzzy.
Blackmun took copious notes and going through his papers Historians (Jeffrey Rose, Michael Kinsley, William Saletan), have agreed, "Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference" Edward Lazarus his law clerk, "Roe borders on the indefensible". Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted it was bad law that set the movement back.
The dissenting opinion pointed out that the 10th and 11th both disagreed with Blackmun's interpretation of the 14th:
Nowhere in the Constitution did it mention federal powers over abortions. Those that value rule of law over judicial activism, are disgusted by the Roe ruling. Blackmun had no authority to give the Supreme Court (and the Federal Government) authority over abortion.
Blackmun used 14th Amendment as an excuse for enacting Roe: Blackmun imagined in the 14th Amendment a power and application that the authors and ratifiers had not: abortion was illegal when it was written/ratified. Nor had anyone else noticed this power and responsibility in the 14th, for 95 years between ratification of the 14th and the Roe ruling.
No Legal Review has ever come up with a substantive defense of Roe: Yale Law, Harvard Law, Justices White, Ginsberg and Rehnquist, Archibald Cox, Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt. They've all hammered it as legal garbage, that stopped legal progress on abortion. Which is why the left goes with emotional appeals, instead of the law. The only people that agree with it, are either ignorant, don't give a shit about the Constitution, rule of law, or ethics: they just want to get their way.
The only people that agree with Roe (as a good ruling), are either ignorant, don't give a shit about the Constitution, the rule of law, or ethics: they just want to get their way. Anyone that defends the ruling goes down a few ticks as rational/ethical people in my eyes.
I like the Roe v. Wade framework, even though the Supreme Court had no authority to make it: while it legalized 1st trimester abortions, it banned 3rd trimester, and left 2nd trimester up to states. However a later/worse decision (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) allowed so much doctors discretion and terminations up to 24 weeks (or beyond), and it's so poorly enforced, that virtually thousands of viable babies were born live and crying, and killed because of doctors discretion. Some like Kermit Gosnell were sent to prison for extending the rules beyond those limits, but only after 30 years of cover-ups. So I can be both pro-choice, and against judicial activism and the genocide of viable full-term babies.
If Roe is removed, what happens? The left will convince you that there will be a return of coat-hanger and back alley abortions. Besides the fact that was never happening in the 1960's (there were dozens of cases nationally, not hundreds or thousands), the facts are that abortions will still be widely legal in virtually all states, especially in the first trimester. What you would see is a few states making a few more restrictions to be more like Europe (12-16 week maximum's, informed consent, doctors permission slips, etc) -- hardly any serious obstructions. For the grey areas (people in a restrictive state), the activists will create programs to bus Women to more liberal states to get them, so virtually no change. And remember, if you've taken a baby to 20-24 weeks, you're already well past the time where a coat hanger or a caustic douche is going to get rid of it -- infanticide (and at viability it would be an infant) should be a major deal with serious restrictions and consequences. Most advocates of Roe are not about protecting abortion in their own communities, they're about imposing their will for unfettered 3rd trimester infanticide in communities that find that morally repugnant -- since they know they can't sell that truth to the public, they lie about the consequences to try to dupe the gullible to be "on their side".
👁️ See also
Abortion - Abortion is a deeply personal view, but someone's views on it is a window into their soul.
Abortion/Life or Choice breakdown - The majority of Americans are both for and against abortion. Most want it more restricted, but legal (in some cases).
Abortion/By Party - General support/opposition for abortion is nearly the same across parties.
Abortion/By Term - The vast majority of Americans want more restrictions.
Abortion/By Ethnicity - Margaret Sanger founded planned parenthood on the idea of exterminating inferior brown babies, so they'd stop outbreeding white ones.
Abortion/Why? - Abortion for Health of Mother (2.8%), Health of Fetus (3.3%), or rape/incest (>1%), total = <6%.
Abortion/Why late term? - The vast majority of late term abortions are not about "Fetal Problems", or "health of the mother". It's irresponsibility.
Abortion Limits - The far left lies, and pretends any reasonable restriction is a "war on reproductive rights".
Roe v. Wade - Roe v. Wade fits my personal beliefs (1st Trimester legal, 3rd illegal), but it was a lousy and Unconstitutional ruling.
Roe is Judicial Activism - "Blackmun’s papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference"
Roe v. 10th and 11th Amendments - The dissenting opinion pointed out that the 10th and 11th both disagreed with Blackmun's interpretation of the 14th.
Roe v. 14th Amendment - Blackmun used 14th Amendment as an excuse for enacting Roe. But the authors, ratifiers, others never noticed it before.
Roe v. Legal Review - No Legal Review has ever come up with a substantive defense of Roe. Which is why the distract with whataboutism.
Planned Parenthood - Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill wrapped in the facade of being about Women's healthcare.
🔗 More
Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill wrapped in the facade of being about Women's healthcare.
Laws This section is about laws, legal, court rulings.
Abortion Abortion is a deeply personal view, but someone's views on it is a window into their soul.
Events Not earth shattering events, but current events big enough for me to comment on.
The consequence of judicial activism was the abortion clinic bombings, not JUST of the fanatics that did them, but I disagree with both sides on that. Though I do get why someone who believes in bombing their local community Auschwitz, I just see it as far more nuanced than that.
