Official Abortion Discussion Thread

Oh boy.

---

I'd like to abort this thread...

---

We already covered this - in June or July.

Then let the games begin.

This matter was decided January 22, 1973.

Well, I don't think abortion should be outlawed, but I'll say that I think roe v. wade is bad law. I think the constitution would put abortion as one of the matters for the states to resolve.

---

Just like gay marriage!

It's okay, it's not your choice, it's the state's choice!

---

It's hardly resolved if it's one of the most volatile subjects in the country.

---

In some places, the issue of segregation is not resolved, either.

Should that have been left up to the states?

---

Whoa--what about gay marriage huh? Cuz last I checked--I can't do it!

And if abortion was left to the states, it would then become illegal in at least 30 of them. Then, while rich can travel to blue states to get an abortion, the poor will drown in unwanted babies or die with wire hangers you know where.

---

Well, I agree there. :)

---

I find the flippant nature of this post to be offensive and an insult to the millions of women for which the issue of abortion is not political, but personal.

Here is something I posted earlier this summer:


Justice Blackmun's Warning as to the demise of Roe v. Wade
Posted On:7/19/05 at 05:21 PM


Sixteen years ago Justice Harry Blackmun warned of the demise of Roe v. Wade. Tonight, I fear that that his warning will become more imminent as Bush nominates the next Supreme Court Justice.

Here is a part of Justice Blackmun’s Dissent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989):

Although today, no less than yesterday, the Constitution and the decisions of this Court prohibit a State from enacting laws that inhibit women from the meaningful exercise of that right, a plurality of this Court implicitly invites every state legislature to enact more and more restrictive abortion regulations in order to provoke more and more test cases, in the hope that, sometime down the line, the Court will return the law of procreative freedom to the severe limitations that generally prevailed in this country before January 22, 1973. Never in my memory has a plurality announced a judgment of this Court that so foments disregard for the law and for our standing decisions.

The plurality opinion is filled with winks, and nods, and knowing glances to those who would do away with Roe explicitly, but turns a stone face to anyone in search of what the plurality conceives as the scope of a woman's right under the Due Process Clause to terminate a pregnancy free from the coercive and brooding influence of the State. The simple truth is that Roe would not survive the plurality's analysis, and that the plurality provides no substitute for Roe's protective umbrella.

I fear for the future. I fear for the liberty and equality of the millions of women who have lived and come of age in the 16 years since Roe was decided. I fear for the integrity of, and public esteem for, this Court.

He continued in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) :

I do not underestimate the significance of today's joint opinion. Yet I remain steadfast in my belief that the right to reproductive choice is entitled to the full protection afforded by this Court before Webster. And I fear for the darkness as four Justices anxiously await the single vote necessary to extinguish the light.

But, we are reassured, there is always the protection of the democratic process. While there is much to be praised about our democracy, our country, since its founding, has recognized that there are certain fundamental liberties that are not to be left to the whims of an election. A woman's right to reproductive choice is one of those fundamental liberties. Accordingly, that liberty need not seek refuge at the ballot box.

Updated On: 8/20/05 at 11:26 PM