NationStates Jolt Archive

The real problem, in America at least, in regards to abortion, is not whether or not it should be legal, but instead by whom and how it is made legal.

Abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court made law. However, this is highly unconstitutional. The legislative branch, Congress specifically, is supposed to make law. Not the president, not the Supreme Court. That being said, who decides if the decision and precedent set by Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional or not? The Supreme Court! So we have justices, who man their post for life, making and interpreting law. Quite frightening if you think about it.

Abortion should have been voted on by a bill, or even better, a constitutional amendment. Just having a few justices decide for the rest of the country is autocratic.

Actually, nowhere in the decision was it started "abortion is legal". What it stated was, "This is a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor." Different.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/roe/overview.php US Supreme Court decisions relating to federal and state laws on abortion

The content of Roe v. Wade and other cases, as summarized in "U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Reproductive Rights 1965-2003," is examined historically. In Roe, by a vote of 7-2, the Court invalidated a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman's life and decided that "any governmental interference with [a woman's] right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny." It did recognize a state's right to "regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester of pregnancy in ways necessary to promote women's health" and stated that "after the point of fetal viability—approximately 24 to 28 weeks—a state may, to protect the potential life of the fetus, prohibit abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life or health."



This is not to say that states have not had the right to or did not create their own laws regarding abortion -- merely that in Roe v. Wade, the Texas law was found to be unconstitutional.

As for your second point -- most of the justices who decided that are retired or dead, and have been replaced by Bush with justices who are seen by some to be more likely than not to reverse Roe v. Wade -- so it's not as if it can never be revisited -- much to the worry of those who feel a woman's right to bodily autonomy is one of the inalienable rights we have not to become the property of another -- even the State.

Pretty interesting.

But isn't that phenomenon very common in the U.S.? I mean, there are a lot of other things that were legalized that way, no?

too late now eh?

This is not to say that states have not had the right to or did not create their own laws regarding abortion -- merely that in Roe v. Wade, the Texas law was found to be unconstitutional.

Yes, but by finding the Texas law unconstitutional, the court set a precedent that would be, and was/is followed by every other court in the nation. Add that to the fact that Judicial Review appears NOWHERE in the constitution and it gets a bit frightening.

And there are plenty of laws regarding what you can and cannot do to your body (drinking under 21, illegal drugs, etc.), male or female. Simply wondering without taking a side, why is abortion different, Kat?

If you reference the article that I provided a link for, you will see, actually, cases in which the laws for abortion WERE decided to be constitutionally sound.

And sure, there are laws that prevent you from drinking (thereby not changing your physical integrity), driving before you are a certain age (not changing your physical integrity, just delaying an act you can take later) preventing you from voting (again, not changing your physical integrity). They all have the common factor that preventing you from doing these things are not going to affect your health negatively, nor will they cause a lasting social impediment or responsibility.

Then you have what amounts to an enforced pregnancy, with the permanent changes it makes to a woman's body, the health risks that it confers both during pregnancy and for the rest of the woman's life, not to mention the pain, discomfort, financial hits, social problems, emotional problems that carrying any child entails but carrying an unwanted child magnifies.

A human being cannot be compelled to give up its bodily integrity (say, a kidney) to another human, even if that other will die without the transplant; why should a woman be forced to give up her calcium, her physical and emotional well-being, her financial/relationship stability and her position in the community to enforce her pregnancy? Enforce pregnancy also, of necessity, punishes the poor and the young far more than middle class, more mature adults -- some women lose their jobs -- their only source of feeding themselves and the family that already exists -- when their employers find they are pregnant. Teens find it difficult if not impossible to continue their education -- which will lead to better jobs and better ability to support themselves -- if they are forced into a responsibility they are not ready for.

If you reference the article that I provided a link for, you will see, actually, cases in which the laws for abortion WERE decided to be constitutionally sound.

And sure, there are laws that prevent you from drinking (thereby not changing your physical integrity), driving before you are a certain age (not changing your physical integrity, just delaying an act you can take later) preventing you from voting (again, not changing your physical integrity). They all have the common factor that preventing you from doing these things are not going to affect your health negatively, nor will they cause a lasting social impediment or responsibility.

Then you have what amounts to an enforced pregnancy, with the permanent changes it makes to a woman's body, the health risks that it confers both during pregnancy and for the rest of the woman's life, not to mention the pain, discomfort, financial hits, social problems, emotional problems that carrying any child entails but carrying an unwanted child magnifies.

A human being cannot be compelled to give up its bodily integrity (say, a kidney) to another human, even if that other will die without the transplant; why should a woman be forced to give up her calcium, her physical and emotional well-being, her financial/relationship stability and her position in the community to enforce her pregnancy?

BECAUSE ABORTION IS MURDERING BABIES!!!! AND SEX IS BAD!!!

OK, at least that's what alot of the arguments seem to boil down to...

Actually, I believe Steel Butterfly is not discussing the morality of abortion but the legality of it and whether or not the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade was constitutionally based.

Actually, I believe Steel Butterfly is not discussing the morality of abortion but the legality of it and whether or not the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade was constitutionally based.

Yes it was, that's why I said most...

I can debunk this in two ways:
1. We have a common law system. Courts are allowed to make law.
2. It is not making law. It is simply saying that abortions are a protected right.

Yes, but by finding the Texas law unconstitutional, the court set a precedent that would be, and was/is followed by every other court in the nation. Add that to the fact that Judicial Review appears NOWHERE in the constitution and it gets a bit frightening.

And there are plenty of laws regarding what you can and cannot do to your body (drinking under 21, illegal drugs, etc.), male or female. Simply wondering without taking a side, why is abortion different, Kat?

Keep in mind that before reaching the SUpreme COurt, the case had been through a standard court, a review for consideration of appeal, an appeal, a request for a full court of appeals, a full court of appeal, review for consideration by the Supreme Court and then the Supreme COurt. The members of the Supreme COurt didn't just wake up one day, climb out of some weird nine-tiered bunkbed, scratched their collective unmentionables, strike down a law at random and then went to play some golf.

Keep in mind that before reaching the SUpreme COurt, the case had been through a standard court, a review for consideration of appeal, an appeal, a request for a full court of appeals, a full court of appeal, review for consideration by the Supreme Court and then the Supreme COurt. The members of the Supreme COurt didn't just wake up one day, climb out of some weird nine-tiered bunkbed, scratched their collective unmentionables, strike down a law at random and then went to play some golf.

I would, strangely, find it satisfying if their day went something like this:

0-8: Zzzz

8-10: *grumble* I don't wanna get up, need to sleep a little more

10-12: ???

12: Oh damn, I overslept! Ahh well, the rest of them probably did it too

12-13: Randomly voted on a number of issues. Think I fell asleep again.

13-15: Golfing, with pies as balls.

15-16: Pieing, with golfs as balls.

17-22: Lived my secret life as a ninja clown.

22-24: Went to bed, after a good pie fight.

The real threat? First they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the fetuses, and I didn't speak up because I was having a fetus omelet for breakfast.

The real threat? First they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the fetuses, and I didn't speak up because I was having a fetus omelet for breakfast.

Your FACE is an egg!

Abortion should have been voted on by a bill, or even better, a constitutional amendment. Just having a few justices decide for the rest of the country is autocratic.

You know, when the Bill of Rights was being considered, many were against it because they felt that it was unnecessary as no agency had the power to remove such rights(whew!). They also felt that enumerating rights retained by the people would nfer that ONLY those rights are retained. That was one of the reason why the Ninth Amendment was added.

It's neither necessary nor prudent to enumerate every right we possess in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it defies it's original purpose of the Document; which is to list the powers and limitations of Government. Consider the folly of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments. Hopefully some lessons were learned.

Omg Ebil Activist Judges!!!!111!!1!1!

What's really scary is when they made up a law that black and white people had the "right" to marry each other. When will these autocrats be contained?

what amazing shit that spils from the mouths of fools who try to talk about the law without any understanding of how the law works.

Why do people fail to use the word autocratic all the time?

what amazing shit that spils from the mouths of fools who try to talk about the law without any understanding of how the law works.

Well, I admit I'm no The Cat-Tribe, but c'mon. I do my best. :p

Well, I admit I'm no The Cat-Tribe, but c'mon. I do my best. :p

there are fools good sir, and then there are fools.

what amazing shit that spils from the mouths of fools who try to talk about the law without any understanding of how the law works.

Hehe. You mean they didn't make a law about black and white people marrying?

Hehe. You mean they didn't make a law about black and white people marrying?

I hope not, I don't want them damn darkies getting their hands on our fine white women.

I hope not, I don't want them damn darkies getting their hands on our fine white women.

I heard that in 25 years they'll be no more white people in Europe. If anyone's going to protect us from this kind of horrible outcome, it's America.

I heard that in 25 years they'll be no more white people in Europe. If anyone's going to protect us from this kind of horrible outcome, it's America.

Whoa there, America is not the only country with intra-family weddings! I'm sure the European are just as good with that.

Edit: As much as my own beloved country, Canada. Don't misunderstand me.

The real problem, in America at least, in regards to abortion, is not whether or not it should be legal, but instead by whom and how it is made legal.

Abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court made law. However, this is highly unconstitutional. The legislative branch, Congress specifically, is supposed to make law. Not the president, not the Supreme Court. That being said, who decides if the decision and precedent set by Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional or not? The Supreme Court! So we have justices, who man their post for life, making and interpreting law. Quite frightening if you think about it.

Abortion should have been voted on by a bill, or even better, a constitutional amendment. Just having a few justices decide for the rest of the country is autocratic.

Yes, but by finding the Texas law unconstitutional, the court set a precedent that would be, and was/is followed by every other court in the nation. Add that to the fact that Judicial Review appears NOWHERE in the constitution and it gets a bit frightening.

And there are plenty of laws regarding what you can and cannot do to your body (drinking under 21, illegal drugs, etc.), male or female. Simply wondering without taking a side, why is abortion different, Kat?

Your analysis is full of fundamental flaws as others have already pointed out, but I will add my two cents anyway.

1. I suggest you actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973) or, perhaps more importantly, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992). They explain at length why abortion is "different" -- the right to choose is a fundamental human right protected by the Constitution. If necessary, I can quote some of the most relevant language for you.

2. If you have specific objections to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, then we can discuss them. But objecting that they are "legislation from the bench" doesn't say anything meaningful. Arguably every Supreme Court decision in the history of our Republic involved some degree of such "legislating." As Jocabia pointed out, is Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/US/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), legislation? How about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)? If not, how are those cases different than Roe and Casey?

3. Judicial review is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) and Article VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=5&invol=137), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and, perhaps more importantly, in The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm). Again, if you wish to quibble with this truth, I can provide the relevant quotations and we can discuss them.

4. Your whole argument appears to either misunderstand or ignore the concept of consitutional rights. These are not matters for popular vote. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Why do people fail to use the word autocratic all the time?

Because... we don't care. It makes us look smart even though we're stupider than a sack of door knobs.

Your analysis is full of fundamental flaws as others have already pointed out, but I will add my two cents anyway.

1. I suggest you actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973) or, perhaps more importantly, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992). They explain at length why abortion is "different" -- the right to choose is a fundamental human right protected by the Constitution. If necessary, I can quote some of the most relevant language for you.

2. If you have specific objections to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, then we can discuss them. But objecting that they are "legislation from the bench" doesn't say anything meaningful. Arguably every Supreme Court decision in the history of our Republic involved some degree of such "legislating." As Jocabia pointed out, is Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/US/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), legislation? How about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483 (1954)? If not, how are those cases different than Roe and Casey?

3. Judicial review is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) and Article VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=5&invol=137), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and, perhaps more importantly, in The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm). Again, if you wish to quibble with this truth, I can provide the relevant quotations and we can discuss them.

4. Your whole argument appears to either misunderstand or ignore the concept of consitutional rights. These are not matters for popular vote. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-wub22.gif

I read the title as:

The Threat of Alabama in America. :p


Carry on...

I believe the court found a law banning abortion to be unconstitutional, so in effect there is no law that can be made along those lines that is constitutional.

The real problem, in America at least, in regards to abortion, is not whether or not it should be legal, but instead by whom and how it is made legal.

Abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court made law. However, this is highly unconstitutional. The legislative branch, Congress specifically, is supposed to make law. Not the president, not the Supreme Court. That being said, who decides if the decision and precedent set by Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional or not? The Supreme Court! So we have justices, who man their post for life, making and interpreting law. Quite frightening if you think about it.

Abortion should have been voted on by a bill, or even better, a constitutional amendment. Just having a few justices decide for the rest of the country is autocratic.

What you've written is factually inaccurate.

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, it struck down a set of laws which prohibited abortion because those laws are unconstitutional.

This is the courts constitutional duty, so it is far from 'highly unconstitutional' as you bizarrely claim.

So I'm at the first COS protest (because my roommate went, so why the hell not) and these black girls walk by and read some of the signs and of them says, "Abortion is a bitch!"

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-wub22.gif

Thanks. :fluffle:

But I am very disappointed that Steel Butterfly appears to have abandoned his thread.

*one last try to get SB to address the flaws in the OP*

But I am very disappointed that Steel Butterfly appears to have abandoned his thread.

Haha well if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Perhaps I'll research it a bit more, and I still think the legislature should determine if it is legal or not, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse against someone more educated on the subject, especially if I was mistaken about a few things.

I hope not, I don't want them damn darkies getting their hands on our fine white women.

Hey, where da white wimmen at?

Haha well if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Perhaps I'll research it a bit more, and I still think the legislature should determine if it is legal or not, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse against someone more educated on the subject, especially if I was mistaken about a few things.

Ah. I understand. Very wise of you. ;)

In effect, the Supreme Court made law.
No, the Court said that nobody gets to make the law for anybody else: the states do not have the right to force a collective decision on any individuals; each individual can make whatever law she wishes for herself. The Supreme Court did not "make any law": since nobody is compelled to have an abortion, or compelled to do anything against their wishes.
The Court most decidedly does have the power to decide what laws are or are not within the proper powers of a legislature to enact.

The real problem, in America at least, in regards to abortion, is not whether or not it should be legal, but instead by whom and how it is made legal.

Abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court made law.

No, they didn't. The default is legal. What the Supreme Court did was declare the laws that banned abortion to have overstepped the bounds of government - to be unconstitutional, thus overturning said laws and leaving the decision to the individual.

However, this is highly unconstitutional.

Finding a law to be unconstitutional is unconstitutional?

How exactly are we supposed to enforce the Constitution, then?

Abortion should have been voted on by a bill, or even better, a constitutional amendment. Just having a few justices decide for the rest of the country is autocratic.

The justices didn't decide for the rest of the country. They made sure that the rest of the country - ie. the individuals - could decide for themselves.

Haha well if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Perhaps I'll research it a bit more, and I still think the legislature should determine if it is legal or not, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse against someone more educated on the subject, especially if I was mistaken about a few things.

You'd be right; TCT's (damn you for beating me to it, TCT) point was that the legislature does determine the legality in one sense, because it writes what the law is. That is, however, a distinct function from determining whether or not Random Law A conforms to the Supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution. And if you really think about it, you cannot expect the legislature to ever say of a law: "Well, it's legal and we passed it, but upon further consideration we consider it unconstitutional and are revoking it". The pressures of the legislature make it well-nigh impossible to meaningfully retain any long-term adherence to the Constitution; they are kept in line by an external check upon them, namely judicial review.

Further, if you read the Federalist Papers dealing with the judiciary, you'd see that this judicial review is exactly what the court was supposed to be doing. Even though it isn't written into the Constitution, the clear idea of the Framers for the court was for the court to check and balance the impulses of the populace, which may often get carried away and drive us away from Constitutional adherence.

In practical terms, judicial review is one of the two biggest reasons why America does not have a parliamentary democracy ala Britain (the other being a meaningful executive veto). Now this means that the court will sometimes do things you don't want, and in more general terms it means more gears for special interests to gum up and stop the levers of government from working, but it also means that we retain a Constitution that explicitly protects our rights whereas Britain relies on the good graces of the House of Commons and an informed electorate. Solid and necessary parts of a good government to be sure, but it would take a lot less in Britain than in America to pervert the efforts of government to ends destructive of its citizenry.