A question for those who support Roe-v-Wade?

Question

Have any of you actually read the decision? If not, you can find it here http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Regardless of one's opinion regarding the morality of abortion, this was a poor decision from a legal standpoint.

Not only did the justices rely on the specious argument that there is a right to privacy to be found in the "penumbra of rights", they went far beyond their proper constitutional role and acted as a second legislative branch by defining legality based on the trimester system.

I doubt that I woulud have agreed with any decision legalizing abortion, but I would have had a lot more respect for that decision if it simply said "yea" or "nay". Anything beyond that belongs to the legislative branch.

What do you pro-choice people think? Please note, I'm not addressing abortion itself, strictly the opiio rendered in Roe.

ck: what are you talking about? Your response makes no sense.

argle: Where might one find the "right to privacy" in the Constitution?

OK people...let's try this again: my question was more about SCOTUS overstepping its bounds than about abortio itself. I would feel the same way if this case involved a Second Amendment issue (about which I feel very strongly).

ck: you are confusing the "right to privacy" with executive privilege. The two are completely and utterly unrelated.

hyperion: I'm not against it because it LIMITS congressional authority. I'm against it because SCOTUS acted AS a legislative body, albeit an unelected one. Either the State has a compelling interest to proscribe abortion or it does not. How can one honestly hold that the State has that compelling interest at some stages of pregnancy, but not at others? PS: Who's your tip for takig the NAB Cup? I hate 'em, but I think I have to go with the Lions.

chicsa: I ever claimed to be an attorney, but I majored in Poli Sci, so I'm not ignorant of the law, either. I agree with you regarding the egregious way SCOTUS trashed the Tenth Amendment in many Civil Rights era decisions. To say they bent the intent of the Interstate Commerce clause would be generous at best.

Answer 1

If you haven't noticed,the vast majority of Supreme Court cases,in one way or another has been an impingement on the rights of the Legislative and/or Executive branches.

Would you have those decisions that meet this criteria overturned?
Applying this as an argument to this single case is really facetious,as it ignores literally scores of other decisions that meet the definition of your argument.

Edit-(NAB)I'm kinda going that way myself.But I'm still getting the feel for the thing.

Answer 2

I'm not sure what your asking here, Yes i have read it extensively in college. I agree with there decision, and i do agree the Court proceedings were a bit dodgy at best then, but if you find theses proceeding to be questionable you should dig a bit deeper into some civil rights cases, and those pertaining to Jim crow laws, some of the early logistic there as well as so called findings to enforce some of those laws would astound you. I'm guessing your not actually legally trained to be evaluating any cases though, because this particular case would not surprise you so very much. Or maybe that is just because of your "moral" standpoint surrounding this particular outcome.

Answer 3

I appeared on the polls and that they appeared plenty greater even than the numbers you gave. they do no longer look to be as far aside as you state above. maximum sturdy attorneys will say the the preferrred courtroom don't have taken up that case. It truly must be a States rights undertaking. I agree a woman can choose for yet i could attempt and talk them out of doing that. All i will ask myself is, 'What greatness have we lost by ability of aborting over a million infants interior the united states on my own in view that Roe v Wade'. Peace

Answer 4

I feel that they were addressing the criminality of the abortion proceedings with an understanding that the issue is a sensitive one. They were right abortion should not be a criminal act as it is a moral decision and a personal one.

Each state has been able to legislate its own views on abortion and although they have not criminalized abortion many states have made it extraordinarily difficult to do so and that is within their rights.

They made the statement precisely because it is a sensitive issue.

Answer 5

That isn't what they did at all.

Yes, I've read the decision. The decision states, in plain English, that the U.S. government does not have the right to infringe on an American citizen's privacy with regard to medical procedures.

Abortion was merely the vehicle, but Roe v. Wade (as opposed to Roe-v-Wade - gosh, you must know a lot about the law) is a decision about PRIVACY, not about abortion. It doesn't legalize abortion. It states that the government doesn't have the Constitutional right to intervene.

Answer 6

I think the judicial branch's decisions require more explanation than a "yea" or "nay," don't you? Such as reasons and evidence and other rather important things. It seems ridiculous to claim the judiciary should uphold or strike down a law with a single word, with no further account.

I need some time to read this thing. Then I'll post again.

Answer 7

Yes, I've read it.

As I recall, it basically said that the Texas law was unconstitutional as written.

It listened to many, many witnesses on both sides. They offered, as part of their opinion (not a ruling per se), that historical opinion on viability and the acceptability of abortion could basically be broken down into trimesters. This was offered, I believe, as a signal to state legislatures, that in any future abortion cases that came before them, they would lean towards accepting abortion in the first trimester, look less favorably on the second, and least favorably on third trimester.

It is the role of the U.S. Supreme Court to be the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, legal precedent, and U.S. law.

Answer 8

Yes, such a poor decision that its withstood 34 years of attacks and a conservative majority on the supreme court, 12 years of a GOP congress and 5 GOP presidents hostile toward it.

Nice try, cupcake!

Answer 9

I support the right to privacy and to make one's own medical choices.
The case was controversal, but it was made by the highest court and up-holding and definer of the law. it is believed that if there really was a missusage of power the case would have been overturned.

Answer 10

If Cheney can have a right to privacy, why can't the People have that right as well?

What am I talking about - Energy Task Force, he's worked very hard to keep whatever happened in it a secret. What we do know is that Ken Lay was involved in it and that there were maps of Iraq pointing out where the oil was.