How would Overturning Roe affect Abortion Rights?

A question for all to Ponder

Published on October 7, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

Moderateman (http://moderateman.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=88642), in a defense of Harriet Miers, just made an interesting statement:

put the lefts precious abortion rights at risk and there is nothing that gets the left foaming at the mouth faster than a perception that someone might overturn Roe V Wade.

Taken at face value, the statement seems to be one of those "well Duh" ones. And if that were indeed the case, no more would need to be said.

But I have a question for everyone here. How would overturning Roe versus Wade affect abortion rights? So many yell that over turning it would make abortions illegal. Would it?

There is no reputable legal scholar around today that thinks that Roe is a good ruling. It basically sucks and shows that you don't have to be smart to be on the Supreme Court. Bakerstreet showed that the so called 'right to privacy' is no such right at all, and that the only thing that Roe did was make abortion a right. Note, I did not say found the right to abortion. For Roe found nothing. Roe created a right. By 7 unelected people. In one ruling, they disenfranchised 200+ million people in the United States.

So why not over rule it? Would not that be better so we could have a better ruling for the future?

And if it is over ruled, what will happen to abortion?

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that?

Comments (Page 3)

bakerstreet

on Oct 07, 2005

wtf are reproductive rights? No such thing.

People need to understand that in a Democracy, if you are going to create a barrier to self-governance, you have to have a reason. Outlawing abortion isn't like forbidding blacks from using water fountains. No one is denied something granted anyone else. There's no descrimination. Nothing in the Constitution provides for it.

So, you either pass an amendment defining "reproductive rights", or you don't and accept our ability to pass laws we deem just regarding them.

As I said on my other blog, Roe v. Wade is like telling the government that they can impose a speed limit on cars, but not on boats, because people have the inherent right to drive a boat any speed they choose. Every aspect of the medical relationship with my doctor is regulated. Every procedure I have has been approved, and I am denied those that haven't.

Saying that women during a few months of pregnancy are granted broad rights none of the rest of us have makes no sense.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

wtf are reproductive rights? No such thing.

I tried to ennumerate them as much as I could. I am sure I fell short. Abortion is not a reproductive right. It is (for now) a non-reproductive right.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

I agree, which is why I rarely even enter into abortion debates anymore, there's only so many of them one wants to have in a single lifetime.

And that is why I made this on the reprecussions of Roe V Wade, and not on whether Abortion is right or just.

shadesofgrey

on Oct 07, 2005

wtf are reproductive rights? No such thing.

In your opinion. Other's disagree. Here's what the Center for Reproductive Rights says:

Reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The power of law, in turn, ensures that this promise will not ring hollow. Laws and legal norms will, in the end, determine whether women will be free to decide whether and when to have children; whether they will have access to contraception, abortion, healthcare information, and safe pregnancy care; and whether they will make reproductive healthcare choices without coercion. Changing laws and legal norms does not immediately change the reality of women’s lives, of course. But, when integrated with other strategies, the law is a catalyst for fundamental social change.

What are reproductive rights?
Reproductive rights, the foundation for women's self-determination over their bodies and sexual lives, are critical to women's equality and to ensuring global progress toward just and democratic societies. These rights include:

The right to a full range of safe and affordable contraception
The right to safe, accessible and legal abortion
The right to safe and healthy pregnancies
The right to comprehensive reproductive health care services provided free of discrimination, coercion and violence
The right to equal access to reproductive health care for women facing social and economic barriers
The right to be free from practices that harm women and girls (such as female genital mutilation)
The right to a private and confidential doctor-patient relationship

shadesofgrey

on Oct 07, 2005

It would be a NON-ISSUE altogether if women stopped screwing around in the first place

In my opinion, it would also be a non-issue if men got pregnant.

bakerstreet

on Oct 07, 2005

No offense, but NAMBLA makes up their own list of rights, too. In order to prevent the people of the United States from self-governing on a given issue, you have to have a reason to deny them those rights. That's what you and others don't understand. This is summarily denying people the right to pass laws based on nothing but a subjective moral value.

If a state deems it fit to outlaw abortion, you can't just say "It's a right." If so, drug use could easily have its Roe v. Wade. There's nothing more self-evident about abortion than there is about consuming narcotics. Frankly, if you read the constitution that way, every law we've ever passed forbidding things that weren't forbidden in the constitution are unconstitutional.

If everything not forbidden by the constitution is an untouchable right, then we couldn't pass any more laws forbidding anything. That isn't how it works. Denying us the ability to self-govern is DENYING RIGHTS as well. If you want to start making up rights out of thin air, then get in line. There are a lot of nutjobs out there that have their own list.

Worse, denying us the ability to pass legislation preventing this procedure is heinously discriminatory, given that you, me, and Rush have no such guarantee of medical privacy. For some reason, as long as it is a woman, and as long as she is pregnant, and as long as she is KILLING the child, she's got special rights. Everyone else functions at the whim of the government.

shadesofgrey

on Oct 07, 2005

No offense, but NAMBLA

Hmm...I'm done with this conversation. I am not sure what you hoped accomplished by comparing me (by virtue of my belief in reproductive rights) to a pedophilia organization--and I am not even going to try to guess.

Did you forget this part of the constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

what about the part that said

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

You know, liberty? The freedom from unjust or undue government constraint.

See, we can all pick bits and pieces of the constitution that fit out goals.

bakerstreet

on Oct 07, 2005

"Hmm...I'm done with this conversation. I am not sure what you hoped accomplished by comparing me (by virtue of my belief in reproductive rights) to a pedophilia organization--and I am not even going to try to guess."

Don't be like that. You quoted an organization as if their definition of "rights" was somehow meaningful. I was just pointing out that any activist organization is going to have their own list of rights. If you want to base our governance on a bullet list on a website, it could get really scary fast.

If you want to make parallels between NAMBLA and Pro-Choice activism in terms of the value of children's lives, we could do that on another blog. I didn't intend such here.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I said, if that prevented us from passing laws about everything not specifically forbidden, then 99.9999% of our laws are unconstitutional. Of course it doesn't. The idea that everything that isn't forbidden in the constitution is an untouchable right is insipid.

Now, if you want to make a "reproductive rights" amendment, knock yourself out. THEN you'd have ground to stand on, just like every other major change we've made in the US. If what you are saying was valid, why did we bother to pass most of those amendments?

There was nothing there saying slavery was permissable. If the courts ruled it unconstitutional, then there was no need to pass an amendment. If the constitution didn't forbid women the right to vote, why bother writing an amendment to allow them? Obviously we don't need the Constitution to spell out ALL rights, do we?

Because when you tell people that they can't pass a law, you are denying THEM a right. When such a conflict occurs, you have to spell out why one or the other's rights are more important. The pro-abortion side can't do that, they just say that they have some inherent right granted them by thin air...

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

In your opinion. Other's disagree. Here's what the Center for Reproductive Rights says:

I guess they just created another oxymoron:

reproductive

adj : producing new life or offspring

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

In my opinion, it would also be a non-issue if men got pregnant.

No, many against abortion are women. changing genders would not change many opinions. Perhaps fewer since men would not have to listen to women on the issue.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

For some reason, as long as it is a woman, and as long as she is pregnant, and as long as she is KILLING the child, she's got special rights.

Morbidly true. For experimental procedures to save the life of the child are not allowed under federal laws. They must be tried on animals before being ALLOWED on humans.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

Did you forget this part of the constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No, but where does that say it that anything not enumerated is automatically a right?

And I think you do Bakerstreet a disservice. He in no way implied or linked you with NAMBLA. He did use them to show the fallacy of your arguments.

bakerstreet

on Oct 07, 2005

"In my opinion, it would also be a non-issue if men got pregnant."

I wonder how far the pro-abortion movement would have gotten had it only been women, and only those who were pro-abortion, that fought for it. No, I think pro-abortionists have to hand it to Chappaquiddick Ted and all the other male "women's rights" proponents with their pants perpetually around their ankles and a deadly fear of paternity suits.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

As I said, if that prevented us from passing laws about everything not specifically forbidden, then 99.9999% of our laws are unconstitutional.

Should have read farther to see you said the same thing. Sorry.

bakerstreet

on Oct 07, 2005

"And I think you do Bakerstreet a disservice. He in no way implied or linked you with NAMBLA. He did use them to show the fallacy of your argument"

Nah, is okay Doc. I knew how it sounded, and it probably was out of line a wee bit. I just think that people don't realize that there is nothing more self-evident about "reproductive rights" than any other right made up off the top of someone's head.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!