Freakin' South Dakota.Follow

Mostly because Ambrya's a f'uckwit and you people still talk to her like she's a rational human being, I thought I would like this little tidbit. Interesting read. I have no idea what the politics of the writer or his rag are, couldn't be ***** to find out. If half of it is true, some of the hysteria is a little over blown when weighed against the 50 million or so dead babies out there.

Gbaji, your main argument is that Roe vs. Wade (and similar rulings) are bad because such decisions should be made not by federal judges, but by the people themselves, and the resulting laws should be kept within each state, correct? My question is: where do you draw the line with this?

What if the majority of people in Alabama decided that black people shouldn't receive equal rights? What if they decided that slavery was OK? What if the folks in Texas agreed that complete vigilanteism, going as far as being able to legally kill someone for looking at your wife the wrong way, were a perfectly acceptable practice? Obviously, there are many issues that the federal government views as so paramount that it feels the need to tell everyone else how things are going to be, period. Apparently, the well being of adult women versus the well being of unborn babies is one of them.

Unless you also think that slavery, murder, and state-supported segregation should be things that the local populations decide freely for themselves, state to state, I can't help but see an inconsistancy here.

I don't see how you can claim that the majority should always make the rules. It may sound like a nice, simple way to go about things, but in many situations it's nothing but a recipe for disaster. The problem lies in the fact that the majority tends to have very little regard for the minority. I hate to imply that society needs its hand held, but sometimes it seems we really do need people in positions of power to make decisions that protect human rights.

Edited, Wed Mar 1 07:11:05 2006 by CAustin

Waht's red and bubbly and scatches at the window?

That's a very good question.

There are several aspects specific to the Roe v. Wade decision that are problematic. First off, let me be clear that it's not that the supreme court should not be empowered to declare individual laws (at any level) unconstitutional. It's that they are *only* supposed to do that. Certainly, the Supreme Court can decide that segregation laws are unconstitutional. But the issues with the Roe v. Wade decision go far beyond merely pointing at a law and saying it's wrong.

Here's where Roe v. Wade has problems:

1. The ruling is broad in the context of the case brought before it. In practice, the Supreme Court rulese on a specific violationn of a specific law and interprets constitutionality based on that case and that law alone. While the ruling certainly may be used as precident for future cases (and usually they are), the ruling itself must be specific to that case. It's up to future judges to inteprete that case and how it relates to some future case they may be ruling on. In Roe v. Wade, the decision did not limit itself to the specific degree to which Roe was pregnant (how many months along), nor to the specific law(s) prohibiting her from having an abortion at that stage of her pregnancy. The decision ignored the specifics of her case and ruled on *all* pregnancies and *all* laws restricting them.

2. The ruling sets law (again too broadly). This follows directly from the first issue. Remember. All they're supposed to do is look at a law and a case and determine if in that case that law violates a constitutional right. What the ruling actually did was set whole sections of law in stone. The decision determined not only the constitutionality of an abortion at the one stage of pregnancy that Roe may have been in at the time she was denied one by state law, but also set limits on state legistlation for three specific stages of pregnancy:

- Up to the end of the first trimester, states may not restrict the right of a woman to obtain an abortion except as regards licensing and quality of those performing them (ie: licensed physician requirements). The choice to have one cannot be restricted.

- Between the end of the first trimester and the beginning of the 7th month, the state may only legistlate on abortion with regards to health of the mother. In other words, abortion(s) must be allowed as long as the woman can show a health detriment from the pregnancy or a "potential health detriment". Basically, if she can get a doctor to say that she might be worse of in terms of health from the pregnancy then from the abortion, then she cannot be prevented from having an abortion.

- Between the beginning of the 7th month and the birth of the child, states may legistlate in terms of death to the mother and/or child. So an abortion designed to save the life of the mother cannot be illegal, but they can restrict them for any other cause. The assumption here is that 7 months is the beginning of the time period in which a fetus may survive outside the womb, and so it's life can only be ended if that's the only way to save the life of the mother.


As you can see, these are incredibly detailed guidelines. Not at all like most Supreme Court cases. They deal not only with several distinct time frames (Roe could not possibly have been pregnant in the first trimester, between first trimester and 7 months, and more then 7 months pregnant all at the same time, right?), but also go far beyond simply finding the Texas law in question at the time unconstitutional. This is what's called legistlating from the bench, and in Roe v. Wade, it's really blatant...

3. The ruling was questionable on constitutional grounds in the first place. The primary "right" upon which the right of abortion was determined was the 14th ammendment. There's a problem though. The 14th ammendment was written *after* most of the existing state laws restricting abortion existed. It specifically was newer then the Texas law in question in this case. The writers of the 14th ammendment never mentioned the "right" to have an abortion, nor was the issue of abortion a hugely contested issue at the time (1868 IIRC). In many cases where the SC justices interpret the constitution, they are interpreting the intention of the writers of those codified rights and trying to figure out how they would have seen the given issue at hand. Usually, this comes about because there's a new law or issue that didn't exist at the time the bit of the constitution in question was written. However, this absolutely was not the case with Roe v. Wade. In this case, the ruling required a reinterpretation of the 14th ammendment to extend it in ways that were not done by the writers of the ammendment.

That's simply not how constitutional rulings are supposed to be done. If the law in question or the issue in question arose *after* a particular right in the constitution was codified, it makes sense to interpret that code in the context of the new issue. But abortion existed when the 14th ammendment was written. And the abortion law in question existed as well. More properly, if the idea was that social mores had changed over time with regards to abortion, such that the idea that a woman should have a right to one without the government preventing it, shouldn't there be a new ammendment written instead? That's the proper format for introducting new rights due to changing social ideas. Reinterpreting an existing ammendment when the writers of that ammendement *could* have included it when they wrote it is very much beyond what the Supreme Court is supposed to be doing.




Again. The 13th ammendment abolished slavery. The 15th ammendment specifically prohibits restriction on voting based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (various Jim Crow laws). The 19th ammendment prohibits restriction on voting based on sex. The 24th ammendment prohibits restriction on voting based on inability to pass a test or pay a fee (more Jim Crow stuff). The 26th ammendment sets the federal voting age to 18.


As you can see, as we've changed our minds on things, we've codified those into law. Not just ruled on them in the courts. Blacks were slaves when the constituion was writen. Thus, you could not end slavery by simply interpreting a previous consitutional right in a new way. An ammendment specifying that had to be written. Same with voting rights. Same with womens rights. Same with everything that represents a social change over time on an already existing issue.

Interpretation of existing rights should only occur when an old law is faced with a new issue. Abortion was not new, nor was the law being ruled upon. That's why it was wrong to rule in that way. If the Congress wants to decide to make an ammendment guaranteeing the right of a woman to have an abortion, that's a totally different issue (and the proper way to do that, although I'd still argue it should be done at the state level).



Again. All those were "ended" via legistlative changes to our constitution, not judicial fiat. I do agree that those are similar issue (changes of viewpoint of "the people" over time). You're actually kinda making my point for me here.



It's not as simple as "majority rules". However, I really think you're confusing two very distinct things. One is interpreting a law in the light of existing accepted constitutional "rights". The other is interpreting a law so as to add a new right. The first catagory is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. The latter is supposed to occur in the legistlature. They create the laws. If we need to codify a new right, then that's where it should occur.


That's why Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. Please feel free to read Rehnquist's Dissenting Opinion on the case. It's very compelling.

Okay, so it's been signed into law. I'm hoping any sexually active woman who doesn't want to be a mom right now is making plans to move the hell out of South Dakota before July; but at any rate - lest it ever be said that neocons aren't truly compassionate people at heart:



I think ol' Bill needs to spend just a little less time thinking about those brutally, brutally sodomoized virgins, personally. But maybe that's just me.

So you agree with him that one would have to be a sodomized virgin (or, one assumes, recent ex-virgin) in order to have the moral and ethical wherewithal to make her own decision about her pregnancy? Just making sure.

I am opposed to this legislation as it does not provide exceptions for children who may be born without the ability to properly seperate paragraphs.

Kalaria, is it so hard to believe that even some agnostics and athiest believe life starts at conception?






Well, I'm neither agnostic nor athiest but pretty damn close.

There was an interesting editorial in the Tribune today that opined that the law is an error. Not because of any moral value but because five of the nine sitting justices have already gone on record supporting Roe v Wade. Even should Alito and Roberts go against the established precedent (which both claim they are loathe to do), the best probable outcome is still a 5:4 ruling upholding Roe v Wade and a setback for the anti-abortion movement.

In other words, moral/ethical or no, the anti-abortion movement may be shooting themselves in the foot with this one. For the record, the Tribune editorial board typically leans conservative.

"Claim" in italics not because I doubt them but because the anti-abortion movement apparently is banking on Roberts & Alito both bucking the Roe v Wade precedent

Edited, Tue Mar 7 13:37:40 2006 by Jophiel

unless the point where conception actually becomes a human being is clearly defined, nothing can change.

S.D. is grandstanding to get this issue to the supreme court because they think they have enough right wing judjes to get what they want.

the problem is, right or left, untill the point a firtilized egg becomes an actual life is defined as being before birth sometime, and clearly defined at which point, they have to follow the rule of law.

ruling against abortion would be unconstitutional as it means the government has the right to prohibit medical treatment on an individual against their will. even if they toss down roe vs wade, their rulling WILL be overturned eventually.

welcome to the taliban. where religious zealots redefine the law to force the masses to follow THEIR beliefs. taliban = republicans. just a differant faction of religion taking over the government.

the moral majority working for you. before long, they will have the whole country FORCED into following Gods law. wait till they find out God does not want people who are FORCED to follow him. thats the whole problem with religious zealotry.

I'm reading alot of discussion about circumstances which justify abortion in this thread. But seriously, why does it need to be justified? I hate to see the opposition to pro-life painted as pro-death, because I thought it was pro-choice for a reason. Isn't pro-choice refering to an individual's right to choose what goes on with their body? Call me crazy, and now that that's out of your system, I'll continue. I'm not a fan of abortion, I don't think anyone is, but I am a fan of people deciding what gestates inside of them and what does not. That's the crux of it for me, women should be able to choose for whatever reason they deem justifiable what goes on inside of them, even if it's after the fact, or after some poor decision making.

I see my favorite quote in awhile in this thread, though:



And it begs the question: So you're Catholic?

Not even close.

Precisely why I preface my statements with things like "I" and "for me". I understand that you have a hard time seeing things in non-argumentative terms, but what I was posting was personal belief, and I don't feel the need to justify that to anyone but myself, nor do I want to persuade others to accept it. Sorry to be dismissive of your tirade, but I really wasn't trying to convince anyone, just stating my opinion.

If I were so inclined to argue though, I'd still be hard pressed to cite facts or statistics, because averages have a way of dilluting the individual's situation. Even this glorious "moral highground" varies depending on an individual's perception. Some folks would see it as more of a crime to deny a woman control over her own body than to deny a potential life.

That's what makes abortion such a fun thing, because it's so not black and white. Even the people on the similar side of the fence don't agree one hundred percent, but since it's never going to be presented in any light besides choice v. life one does pick what deep down inside they feel to be the proverbial lesser of two evils. Again, an individual's choice and responsibilty to themselves.

In the end though, it is a careful balancing act just to formulate an opinion on the subject. I'm simply hesitant to impose a larger will upon a singular situation, when the conseqeunces of having or not having an abortion will be carried primarily by that one woman. I understand numerous people would lend just as much viability to the unborn, but I wouldn't. That's callous and insensitive, and it's coming from a young guy with no experience in child-rearing of my own, but it's how I see the issue. I don't feel any need to convince others that I'm right on this subject, because it's never going to be up to me, as I have external plumbing and sling yogurt. I'd even go so far as to say my opinion holds zero relevance in an abortion discussion beyond helping me sleep at night.

I'm going to wrap this up now with another observation, about you and me, gbaji. You are clearly a very rational being, dedicated to logic, and this is why you and I arguing is so futile. I view things more emotionally and internally(hawt), not saying either way of forming ideals is inferior, just saying. Also, I'd bet you were able to make that post all in one sitting, whereas I had to type this agonizingly long response in between servicing the needs of insurance consumers; I'd say that's a point for me

I wrote all of that and never once mentioned virgins being sodomized, I am dissappointed in me.