Should we overturn Roe v. Wade?

Question

On the 33rd anniversary of her initial lawsuit, which resulted in the high court's historic ruling three years later, Norma McCorvey (search) announced Tuesday she will petition the court to reopen the original case, based on changes in law and technology over the last 30 years.

"I'm sorry that I signed that affidavit," McCorvey said during the press conference Tuesday, referring to when she became the plaintiff in the original case.

She said the court case "brought the holocaust of abortion" but that with her legal action Tuesday, "I feel good about myself, I really do. I feel like the weight of the world has really been lifted off my shoulders."

McCorvey made the announcement at the Ferris Plaza Park in Dallas, just blocks from the Earl Cabell Federal Building, where the original lawsuit was entered.

"I long for the day that justice will be done and the guilt from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," McCorvey said in a statement announcing the intent of the motion. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children.

Answer 1

Abortion out, the law is bad. It is not the courts job to pass laws. If you look at the 10th amendment it is up to the states to pass laws as that one.

Answer 2

Too late. Roe was already partially overturned in 1992 by the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Not that anyone really cares that much about the actual law when discussing what's really an emotional or religious issue.

That being said, a person can't just re-open a case because they don't like the results 30 years later. This person has tried several times before, and the Supreme Court has consistently reminded her that's not how the law works.

But to answer the underlying question, it's frightening how many people think its a good idea for the government to have the final say in who gets to be pregnant.

The abortion debate is arguing two entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government should be making personal decisions that like". The issue isn't about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions.

Face it: someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws).

What the Supreme Court did in Roe and Casey and the many other cases that followed is make a determination that the fundamental right to control one's own bodily processes (reproductive privacy or bodily integrity) is more important than the state interest in regulating who gets to be pregnant.

But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, if women lose the individual right to choose, and the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to state control.

New York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.

Or North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.

South Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. Or mandating that women serve as surrogates. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide? When the states can't even follow the existing rules of law?

Once the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.

Do you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.

The concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.

Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?

Answer 3

At last, a clear question. And a clearly stated, rather carefully edited rationale for your asking the question.

Now, I wish I could be convinced that you are aware of and sensitive to the subtleties and complexities of the issue rather than seeking a simplistic answer, probably one that agrees with the position you have already determined as the one you will hold and support.

Polls show that our citizens are divided about 50/50 when asked your simple question.

When does life begin? I'm not sure that either science or religion has done a very thorough job of answering that question. I know how I feel personally, but I am a male; so obviously my own feelings will never be put to the ultimate test. It's just that, in every single case, when my wife and I realized that she had conceived, we immediately began to think of those few cells in her womb as "our living child." We named them and loved them. Even in those instances (in the days before birth control was quite so easy) when we had not planned them. If someone had destroyed the life in those "cells," we would have wanted them prosecuted--for infanticide.

So, how do I feel about abortion. If I were to make a decision, I cannot imagine that it would involve an abortion.

Well, unless my wife's life were at stake! Unless my wife had been raped! Already the simple answer isn't quite so simple.

What if I knew the child would be born without a functioning brain, or spine, or heart? Uh-oh. As heart-breaking as any decision would be, simplicity has just flown with the wind.

Do I think my church has the right to define biblical teaching on when life begins? For me and my fellow church members, maybe. For other churches, or other religious groups, or the non-religious? Well, there's not such a simple answer in my mind.

So, given the 50/50 split in our society, what can we do? Well, I don't think we should bomb abortion clinics or right-to-life rallies. I don't think we should even demonize or ridicule those who oppose our points of view. Debate should be civil. Strong stands should be taken, but always with an awareness of the complexities and subtleties of the issue -- and the motives and intentions of the speaker.

In the meantime, polls also show that many people on both sides of the issue can agree on the need to address certain problems. One of the ways we can prevent abortion is to prevent unintended pregnancies. Another way we might prevent abortion is to make it clear to the pregnant woman how much that child might be loved and cherished by thousands and thousands of couples unable to conceive their own children. And that she personally would not be discriminated against because of her decision.

If our political discourse were civil, we might actually say to each other: "I understand that you oppose abortion in all (or most) situations; I would permit abortion in most (or all) situations. While we each take our stand, how can we, in the meantime, attempt to reduce the number of abortions, all of which are probably traumatic experiences?"

"Can we talk?"

Nah, probably not.

But, as one evangelical Christian, I wish we could.

Answer 4

Sure why not. And while were at it, why don't we overturn Brown v Board of Education. If the Cancervatives had it their way, we'd all be in a modern day 1800's. There is either a progression or a regression. With progression come freedom, ala rights cases as the one you described. Besides, there isn't a dang thing illegal that SOMEBODY doesn't have access to. You'd just be asking for more back-alley abortions, which is so much better than professional, butchery-free, legal abortion.

Answer 5

No,
You cant legislate morality. Abortion is a moral decision most religious people have a problem with this (I am christian let me say this first) But the fact is by making things that are clearly a moral choice and only that (i.e. not a true crime on society), you are pushing the people to go to other venues to achieve their desires. As a result these are venues not regulated by the government and much more harm is done than if the product/service were legal.

We tried to legislate morality with prohibition... We know how that ended.

Answer 6

I hope not. I'm certainly not planning on having one but I have daughters and I don't want that option closed to them.

McCorvey reminds me of Karla Faye Tucker or Linda Lovelace. Now that these ladies are too old for abortions, too incarcerated for murder or too old for porn, all of a sudden being a spokesperson against the very thing that made them famous sounds so appealing.

It seems a little too convenient to find God or Enlightenment at the last minute.

Answer 7

I heard about an Abortion Clinic in Florida that gave birth to a baby that was reported to have been ALIVE they stuck it in a Bag and killed it. The case is currently under investigation. I would LOVE to see Abortion doctors on trial for MURDER. Woman say they should have a CHOICE. They do. The can Chose NOT to get Pregnent. It's called Birth Control.

Answer 8

I support abortion rights, but I think Roe is a poor decision.

I also think that overturning Roe, paradoxically, would lead to a rebirth of liberal activism. People who care about abortion rights would have to fight in the states . . . and moderate Republicans who care about their right to choose couldn't punt any longer.

Roe is part of a tradition of dubious jurisprudence which find the right to privacy in the "penumbra" of other rights-- the problem is that the Constitution doesn't actually have a privacy rights clause--and it ought to.

The fact that it "ought to" doesn't mean that one should torture language to find a right which isn't identified anywhere explicitly.

Put another way, when we decided to ban slavery, we didn't do it by reinterpreting the Constitution, we did it by amending the document, putting in black and white that we reject slavery, now and forever.

Seems to me that is the right way to go.

Answer 9

We can't exactly overturn it without going back to coathangers now can we? You can't take a "right" away after granting it. There are circumstances (rape) that almost everyone would agree is a situation that a baby should not be brought into this world. A mother's life? Restrictions, yes. Elimination, no.

Answer 10

What should be done and what will be are two different things. I noticed that you left out that in the original lawsuit, it was found that the suit was brought up on false pre-texts. That she later admitted that she had not been raped. Funny that this would be grounds for dismissal in any other lawsuit, but this one.