A question about the SCOTUS decision on the partial abortion ban - please remain civil?

Question

I am neither advocating nor speaking out against partial birth abortions. I'm curious about people's opinion on ONE issue with regard to this decision:

If, as pro-life people always say, the SCOTUS is not empowered by the Constitution to make decisions on the legality of abortion, are they upset that the SCOTUS made this decision today? (If you're unfamiliar with the decision... the SCOTUS upheld the partial birth abortion ban that Bush signed into law in 2003.) The main objection to Roe v. Wade, apart from the fact that pro-lifers believe abortion is murder, seems to be that they don't believe the Court was acting within its Constitutional authority when it made that decision. So apart from the fact that this decision today is on the pro-life side... why is it any different?

Please remain civil; I remained civil when asking the question.

Actually, Clair, Roe v. Wade didn't say that at all.

Kyrix: What law did Roe strike down? The Court held that a governmental ban on abortion was a violation of the Constitutional rights of the woman involved. It didn't strike down a law any more than it struck down Terri's Law. Laws which violate the Constitution are illegal in this country.

Answer 1

If you read Justice Kennedy's opinion on the issue, you will see that is exactly what he said. He said that the Supreme court should not be deciding the issue of abortion it should be left up to the legislators. Since the legislators who were elected by the people passed the law the Supreme Court should not rule against it.

Answer 2

Good question. Keep in mind that the SCOTUS didn't change any laws; it upheld a law. In other words, it chose to restrain itself from judicial activism. By making a decision rather then simply not hearing the case, it also attempted to set a precedent that future courts can't just offhandedly strike down the law because it feels like doing so (based on history, a future SCOTUS could, but they'd be doing so on even shakier grounds).

As for Roe v Wade, excluding my personal feelings about abortion in general, my problem with it is not so much that it struck down a law, but that it attempted to say the law violated the Constitution, despite there being nothing in the Constitution about abortion. Rather, the SCOTUS stated that abortion is in the Constitution under a person's right to privacy, a dubious leap of logic indeed. Remember that the function of SCOTUS shouldn't be to willy-nilly create or destroy laws, but only to strike down laws that CLEARLY contradict the Constitution, a function on which it failed in Roe v Wade. BTW, if Row V Wade were to be reversed (and it won't), that wouldn't necessarily make abortion illegal. Rather, it would move that decision to the 50 states who'd make 50 separate decisions on how to handle the issue.

RESPONSE : The ban you're referring to is the law that Roe v Wade struck down. People voted for representatives who created a law outlawing abortion, and the SCOTUS dismantled it. If there was a Constitutional right to abortion that would be all well and good, but it's not mentioned. There is no right to an abortion in that document, meaning the issue ought to be up to the elected representatives. Instead, the justices at the time decided that a right to take the life of an unborn child was included in the "right to privacy", which is downright ridiculous. It's problematic because the SCOTUS is effectively claiming powers it does not have by deciding on issues it has no business meddling in.

Answer 3

As a ...'mostly' anti-abortion liberal atheist,

I will tell you that Roe v. Wade was held that it is constitutional to kill the embryo/fetus within the FIRST trimester of pregnancy.

The landmark case was meant to stay within ethical realms,
Such as many European nations have continued with today.

It took another, very sad and callous Supreme court decision with Casey, allowing the destruction to go on until "viability" which is a very fragile and unscientific way--especially in the ignorance of the day about fetology-- to base any law.
Since then, you can get an ELECTIVE abortion all the way up until you are 7 months pregnant.

YOu would think with scientific knowledge and compassion with what we now know about the developing human being in utero,
the barbaric law would be repealed.

However, there is no real fetal advocates, they can not speak for themselves and anyone who is on a 'pro life' side
is pigeon holed into an all or nothing approach to abortion law,

abortion law should be based on compassion, scientific fact, ethics and reason.

I think if one learns fetal development and the sickening truth of abortion procedure-- especially past the first trimester,
it's a no brainer what the law should be.

Answer 4

Well, the SCOTUS upheld a law by congress so they are saying that legislative changes are okay, even if judicial activism is not (even though the principle of judicial activism has been claimed by the court for 200 years).

Personally, I don't see why this one procedure is singled out. Does it matter whether they crush the fetus' skull before or after they pull the legs out of the womb? Why is one wrong and the other, okay?