#26
Posted: 1/12/06 at 11:55pm
Magnums will not help them!
Justice Blackmun's Warning as to the demise of Roe v. Wade — Page 2
#27
Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:35am
I was listening to a talk show host today commenting that men will be as upset as women when Roe is overturned - they will be a lot of court cases seeking child support in the next few years!
If the far right thinks overturning Roe will diminish premarital sex - well, I have a plan for Iraq's liberation to sell you.
If the far right thinks overturning Roe will diminish premarital sex - well, I have a plan for Iraq's liberation to sell you.
#28
Posted: 1/13/06 at 10:12am
Maybe some feminist attorneys will begin crafting legislature making DNA tests and 18 years' worth of child support mandatory for the sex partners of any pregnant woman, with high prison penalties for deadbeat dads.
#29
Posted: 1/13/06 at 10:18am
I say, let them overturn Roe v. Wade. We'll see what happens...who knows? Might be a good thing.
#30
Posted: 1/13/06 at 10:21am
Well, it's a done deal now. It means 50 battles, spread out over the 30 years. It's more of the Orwellian prediction for American totalitarianism: A PERPETUAL STATE OF WAR.
#31
Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:11am
How is letting a women not control decisions about her own body a good thing?
The underpinnings of Roe have nothing to do with abortion, but a person's right to privacy and the ability to be left alone from government control.
The right to privacy is not explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights. It is one of the rights that is assmumed the aggregate of all of the amendments and the idea of a living and breathing constitution.
The current court overturned state restrictions on certain kinds of sex in part because of the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. You don't think the far right is just aching to outlaw gay sex? Those acts will be next if they have their way.
Be careful what you wish for, some of you on this board may soon be breaking the law by simply loving your partner.
The underpinnings of Roe have nothing to do with abortion, but a person's right to privacy and the ability to be left alone from government control.
The right to privacy is not explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights. It is one of the rights that is assmumed the aggregate of all of the amendments and the idea of a living and breathing constitution.
The current court overturned state restrictions on certain kinds of sex in part because of the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. You don't think the far right is just aching to outlaw gay sex? Those acts will be next if they have their way.
Be careful what you wish for, some of you on this board may soon be breaking the law by simply loving your partner.
#32
Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:24am
As a woman whose personal beliefs are pro-life but who thinks that Roe v. Wade should stay the way it is, it saddens me to no end that this debate is going on.
It's so easy to throw around catch phrases like "family values are on the line!" and "life is sacred!" to your cronies who have lots of money and lots of life options. I DARE any of them to take the hand of the 12-year-old pregnant girl at my church and drive her to a clinic to get a pregnancy test. I DARE them to sit by the bedside of a college girl who just suffered through a rape and is awaiting her test results. I DARE them to help a pregnant welfare mother cook dinner for her four children. I DARE them to swallow their arrogance and see that BEING PRO-LIFE IS NOT ABOUT making abortion illegal, it's making sure the circumstances around the abortion never happen in the first place.
It's so easy to throw around catch phrases like "family values are on the line!" and "life is sacred!" to your cronies who have lots of money and lots of life options. I DARE any of them to take the hand of the 12-year-old pregnant girl at my church and drive her to a clinic to get a pregnancy test. I DARE them to sit by the bedside of a college girl who just suffered through a rape and is awaiting her test results. I DARE them to help a pregnant welfare mother cook dinner for her four children. I DARE them to swallow their arrogance and see that BEING PRO-LIFE IS NOT ABOUT making abortion illegal, it's making sure the circumstances around the abortion never happen in the first place.
Avatar - Isaac, my blue-fronted Amazon parrot. Adopted 9/7/07. Age 30 (my pet is older than me!)
#33
Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:27pm
I might sound a bit unfeeling, YWIW, but I feel that since so many people believe in the right to life as they put it, then let them have a few years of the return to back-alley abortions, unwanted children, suicide and who knows what else havoc would come from overturning that decision. Or perhaps each state would have the sense to allow women to live they way they choose and not restrict abortion at all, which is the way it should be. Of course, being a gay man, this issue has absolutely no effect on my personal life at all. I've known a handful of girls who've had abortions and I think they made the right, if painful decision.
#34
Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:56pm
Y - looks like you started the project!!!
In Roe Blackmun outlined the cases which form the underpinning of privacy:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (196
, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (192 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
In Roe Blackmun outlined the cases which form the underpinning of privacy:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (196
, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (192 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
#35
Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:03pm
Here is another privacy case that might be of interest to those on the board, straight and gay, that like to keep the government out of the bedroom:
Lawrence v. Texas
The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
Lawrence v. Texas
The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
#37
Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:17pm
brdlwyer -
If Roe falls, Lawrence will be the next target.
Lildogs, I have to disagree with your statement "Of course, being a gay man, this issue has absolutely no effect on my personal life at all."
If Roe falls, and Lawrence is the next target, as I believe it will be - then it might have a very big effect on the lives of many gays in America.
The whole issue is your personal right to privacy, your zone of privacy, and your ability to be left alone. If Roe is overturned, then these rights, at least on the Federal level, come into question.
This whole discussion is much bigger than Roe - that is just the first step in the process.
If Roe falls, Lawrence will be the next target.
Lildogs, I have to disagree with your statement "Of course, being a gay man, this issue has absolutely no effect on my personal life at all."
If Roe falls, and Lawrence is the next target, as I believe it will be - then it might have a very big effect on the lives of many gays in America.
The whole issue is your personal right to privacy, your zone of privacy, and your ability to be left alone. If Roe is overturned, then these rights, at least on the Federal level, come into question.
This whole discussion is much bigger than Roe - that is just the first step in the process.
Updated On: 1/13/06 at 01:17 PM
#38
Posted: 1/13/06 at 2:25pm
I know what you're sayin, YWIW, but really, in NYC, I have very little to worry about--and if I do, I have NO problem with leaving this country. I just think that since people voted for Bush, they should get what they said they wanted. Like so much, they don't know what they had till they've lost it. It's like being caught with smokes and being forced to smoke the whole pack--I just think that smoking Bush's whole pack might be just what the people who need to change need to do in order to see WHY they shouldn't support people like Bush. Alot of "morality" works in theory, rarely in practice.
#39
Posted: 1/13/06 at 2:35pm
I am in a safe state as well.
These things always happen in cycles - there will be an over-reaction in the next 5-15 years from the mess Bush has created, starting the swing back to more socially permissive attitudes in government.
I just feel bad for those caught in the crossfire until folks realize what they have done by permitting this theocracy to exist.
But, you cannot leave the country - that lets them win.
These things always happen in cycles - there will be an over-reaction in the next 5-15 years from the mess Bush has created, starting the swing back to more socially permissive attitudes in government.
I just feel bad for those caught in the crossfire until folks realize what they have done by permitting this theocracy to exist.
But, you cannot leave the country - that lets them win.
#40
Posted: 1/13/06 at 2:43pm
Well, if it's between living in peace and happiness in Canada or in misery in the US, I'll let them win.
I think you're right though--the pendulum will swing back toward the left...I hope the rest of the folks who vote against their economic interests will see that a few wedge issues are indeed just that--ways for the wealthy to get votes from the same people they screw over to get rich. But then again, what the hell do I know?
I think you're right though--the pendulum will swing back toward the left...I hope the rest of the folks who vote against their economic interests will see that a few wedge issues are indeed just that--ways for the wealthy to get votes from the same people they screw over to get rich. But then again, what the hell do I know?
#41
Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:06am
The clock is ticking......
Alito will be one of the most conservative Justices ever!
Alito will be one of the most conservative Justices ever!
#42
Posted: 1/22/06 at 11:18pm
For 33 years women have been afforded basic rights, the clock ticks!
#43
Posted: 1/22/06 at 11:23pm
And most Americans don't seem to care.
Those on the extremes do, but the rest, do not realize the consequences of the erosion of the federal right to privacy.
Those on the extremes do, but the rest, do not realize the consequences of the erosion of the federal right to privacy.
#44
Posted: 1/22/06 at 11:27pm
Y - I just do not get it.
Roe protects the right of a woman NOT to have an abortion. What is wrong here???
Roe protects the right of a woman NOT to have an abortion. What is wrong here???
#45
Posted: 1/22/06 at 11:28pm
So - does this mean that the Republicans will be willing to teach their daughters to keep their legs closed? My tax dollars are already streached supporting bastard children across the country. And I am not even a parent...I am a gay man supporting other peoples mistakes.
"Oh Link...your pork is ready..." - Edna Turnblad
#46
Posted: 1/22/06 at 11:37pm
People don't see the other side of the case - they only view it for what it permits women to do when they control their own bodies - they do not think of the consequences when that control is taken away and possible given to government.
The right to be left alone - "so long, farewell, get my coathanger tonight."
It impacts anyone who wants to maintain the right to privacy. Anyone who thinks there should be a base federal standard for privacy.
I really wonder if the gay community understands the possible consequences of overturning Roe. I don't think so.
And to answer you Cheeze - it means that many of the recent federal gains in gay rights based upon the assumed right to privacy in your own home are under attack.
I would be amazing if those who cared so much about the fetus universally cared so much about the living. Some do, but many abandon the "culture of life" once life begins.
The right to be left alone - "so long, farewell, get my coathanger tonight."
It impacts anyone who wants to maintain the right to privacy. Anyone who thinks there should be a base federal standard for privacy.
I really wonder if the gay community understands the possible consequences of overturning Roe. I don't think so.
And to answer you Cheeze - it means that many of the recent federal gains in gay rights based upon the assumed right to privacy in your own home are under attack.
I would be amazing if those who cared so much about the fetus universally cared so much about the living. Some do, but many abandon the "culture of life" once life begins.
Updated On: 1/22/06 at 11:37 PM
#47
Posted: 1/22/06 at 11:39pm
I really wonder if the gay community understands the possible consequences of overturning Roe. I don't think so.
Neither do I.
Neither do I.
#48
Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:22am
If Roe is overturned, every state will create its own laws. The next 50-100 years will see bitter, hate-filled fights in every state to have laws passed that protect either the life of the fetus or the life of the mother.
Anti-abortion states will pass subsequent laws making it illegal for a woman to cross state lines to have an abortion. Any pregnany woman caught doing so could be forced to have her baby in jail.
Anti-abortion states will pass subsequent laws making it illegal for a woman to cross state lines to have an abortion. Any pregnany woman caught doing so could be forced to have her baby in jail.
#49
Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:02am
PJ - the state law argument -where you preclude someone from crossing state laws and then prosecute when they do, arguably violates the commerce clause, where you cannot discriminate on commerical activity based upon rules specific to your state. I have not heard it argued in abortion cases, but I would argue that it would be a limit on interstate commerce, and therefore onconstitutional (though I am going back a few years to my conlaw course). The bigger issue is whether the right to cross state lines will effectively becomes a means and resources test - will you have the resources to cross state lines to get an abortion?
It will also make it possible for states to make consensual gay sex illegal, especially if the state does not have a separate right to privacy (as we do in California.) The federal zone of privacy is a minimum threshold for much conduct that many assume to be part of our inalieable rights.
If that threshhold is eliminated, each state, depending on its state constitution, could enact laws that affecting how different couples express their love.
It will also make it possible for states to make consensual gay sex illegal, especially if the state does not have a separate right to privacy (as we do in California.) The federal zone of privacy is a minimum threshold for much conduct that many assume to be part of our inalieable rights.
If that threshhold is eliminated, each state, depending on its state constitution, could enact laws that affecting how different couples express their love.
#50
Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:13am
This will be Bush's enduring legacy: perpetual civil war.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $101
