SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy who wrote (224938)3/19/2005 7:42:34 AM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572151
 
did you know Norma McCorvey didn't get the abortion and is pro-life now?

womensissues.about.com



To: Elroy who wrote (224938)3/19/2005 10:50:11 AM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572151
 
"Do you know what they "made up" in the constitution in the Rode vs. Wade case to explain their decision?"

The woman, who went by the name of "Jane Roe", won the case. As one might suspect, the decision wasn't handed down until long after she gave birth.

The basic issue that was addressed by this ruling was that the options of a pregnant woman who didn't want to continue the pregnancy depended on how wealthy she or her family was. If you were rich, you could afford to fly to Europe or travel to those states where abortion was legal. If you weren't so rich, and lived in the Southwest, Mexico was always an option. Not that it was legal in Mexico, but along the border abortion clinics were common. It wasn't as safe as the others, but it was a whole lot cheaper. If you were poor, or didn't live in the Southwest, the options pretty much involved a coat hanger.

In the court opinion, several issues were raised.
It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century.
...
It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.
...
To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.


tourolaw.edu



To: Elroy who wrote (224938)3/21/2005 6:23:20 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 1572151
 
What, I'm going to get quizzed now?

Roe won the case, in the sense that the Texas abortion laws where found to be unconstitutional by the court. Roe was the pregnant woman who wanted an abortion.

What Roe made up was that "a right to privacy" equals "a right to have an abortion". In an earlier case, Griswold v. Connecticut, the court had created the idea of a constitutional privacy right. The privacy right was claimed to emanate from the "penumbras" of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, and is also assumed to have support in the 14th amendment.

In Roe it was decided that the right to privacy includes the right to an abortion. That abortion was a fundamental right so that restrictions on abortion face strict scrutiny requiring a compelling state interest to be allowed. It was decided that the state's interest in fetal life does not become compelling to viability which was set at 6 months (even though fetuses can be viable earlier than that) It was also decided that the fetus was not considered a person under the 14th amendment. It was decided that the state may regulate abortion during the second trimester only for the protection of the woman's health and that it may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life. However in practice many attempts to ban late term abortions have been struck down by later court decisions.

None of the referenced amendments mentions abortion (or contraception which was at issue in Griswold). None of them say anything about a generalized right to privacy, nor is there any indication anywhere in the constitution or even pre-Griswold USSC cases, as to why such a right to privacy should apply to abortion and contraception but not to information about my income (source, amount, ect.) or in many other areas where there is information about ourselves which we would like to keep private. Also the cases don't even really deal with privacy (keeping information private, or keeping others from observing us) but rather with actions and how they can and can't be regulated.

Tim