Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Maybe Roe was wrongly decided.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:36 PM
Original message
Maybe Roe was wrongly decided.
There is no provision for privacy in the constitution. Many people, not just the forced-birth camp, feel that the justices erred when they took this issue out of the control of the individual states.

Therefore, we should focus energy on amending the Constitution so that medical privacy will never be a legislative issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. You want male legislators locking your reproductive rights?
Clements had said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law".

Even though she was a conservative, W didn't pick her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. That is the conservative argument re: Roe
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:41 PM by Gormy Cuss
Privacy is defined in other court decisions too (google Louis Brandeis and you'll find plenty on this topic.)

As far as amending the constitution, I'm still waiting for the Equal Rights Amendment to get ratified. It's not so easy to amend the Constitution these days. If the states understood that medical privacy included precluding outlawing abortion, the amendment would never be ratified.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. after RvW is overturned...
What will stop pukes from passing a federate law making abortion illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. States' rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. So... The Women Of California And New York...
will be able to secure an abortion if they so desire. And the rich women of Alabama and Wyoming, those that aren't afraid to fly or drive, will also be able to secure an abortion if they so desire.

But... guess who gets the coat hanger, and the uncontrollable hemorrhaging again. The poor women of every Neanderthal run backwater of this country.

Separate AND Unequal!!!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
47. Nothing guarantees equal protection of the law across state boundaries.
I agree with Roe's result, though I think the reasoning could have been stronger. I would have preferred the court to establish some position regarding the unenumerated rights of the ninth amendment. Abortion was legal when the Constitution was ratified, and if reproductive freedom isn't a basic right, I don't know what is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Payne Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. So Sad
"Abortion was legal when the Constitution was ratified"

It's really sad that people from the 1700's had more insight on the issue then most people today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. and if one isn't dumb enough to think they'd actually go for that?
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:04 PM by enki23
what then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. "States Rights" should've protected medical marijuana too
but of course it didn't because states rights isn't a real conservative postion, it was just a convenient excuse to defend institutionalized racism that gets dusted off when it's needed. I want better legal protection than the half-assed principles and tissue-thin justifications of republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. A little thing called liberty.
Sort of encompasses privacy, don't you think?

Of course,the Fourth Amendment deals with privacy as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. huh?
No. It's my name, and my state. I'm not very clever.

why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunDrop23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
44. I believe the implication is you are really a guy.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. Would you like to borrow my flame suit?
You are going to need it.

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. So... Griswold was wrongly decided, too?
I don't know what country you're living in, but in the USA I am familiar with, amending the constitution to say people have the right to use birth control is not going to happen. Unless maybe you could somehow convince people that the pill prevents flag burning....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Welcome to DU!
Good luck!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Do you think that was necessary?
Really? I like to discuss things, not throw insinuations around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I'm not SAYING it's wrong!!

I'm saying it should be an AMENDMENT so that no one else can ever say that it's wrong.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:12 PM
Original message
That's not what I read in the OP
Nice to see you change your tune, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
34. excuse me
I am not changing my tune, I am explaining myself better. I understand that your itching for a fight, but we're on the same team. I don't appreciate the hostility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. "There is no provision for privacy in the constitution."
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:26 PM by Walt Starr
That line of thinking runs counter to Griswold which is the basis of Roe.

Your words have demonstrated your feelings on the matter.

Griswold decided, rightly so, that there IS a constitutionally protected right to privacy and it has held the test of time. Griswold is the basis for having any type of reproductive freedom whatsoever and is the only reason human beings can legally talk about sex issues and birth control with healthcare professionals. Teh ultimate aim of the theocrats is to overturn Griswold and establish a clear union of curch and state by stripping us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. No, what you're saying is that we should CAPITULATE.
FUCK THAT.

I'M FUCKING SICK OF IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Actually, I thought it was argued quite successfully that privacy was
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:52 PM by electron_blue
in the Constitution. That's the whole reason Roe v Wade was established in the first place. I heard Sarah Weddington give a lengthy speech on this. She's the attorney who argued this in the S.C. For a quick link, see this Wikipedia link. She argued, successfully, that several amendments to the Constitution guaranteed access to abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KarenInMA Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. I don't think any of you understood me:
Let me explain:


Anti-choice people whine about RvW because they say that there is nothing in the constition about privacy. Because of this, they think the issue should be decided on an individual state level.

I'm saying that privacy SHOULD be in the constitution. It should be an ammendement.

Maybe I'm an optomist, maybe I'm too young to know better, but I think women who haven't been paying attention, will wake up if there is a serious threat to the freedoms that we've grown up with.

Ok? Stop yelling at me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You (they) misunderstand
Anti-choice people are wrong about privacy not being in the Constitution.

Still, I hear what you're saying about the fact that if it was in there totally explicitly, then all would be good.

This is why I've supported the ERA. Technically, women have right to equal protection to the law as the Constitution is written (mainly in the amendments aimed at granting rights to former slaves and non-property owners) but still... it would help to have an ERA.

I'd go one further, it'd probably help to have an amendment granting the right to an abortion. But probably not going to happen.

Privacy is in the Constitution. Check out the links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catzies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. Thank you for bringing up the ERA.
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:13 PM by catzies
I have the links tracking its latest re-introduction in an email somwhere...I'll go find them.

edit: found!

house bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-37

senate bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sj109-7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. I thought you were being sarcastic.
Apparently not.

Would have been a great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. I heard you. Read my post.
This country had too many states that were afraid to codify that women were equal to men under the law. Trust me, if abortion isn't specifically excluded from a medical privacy amendment, it will never be ratified.

I'd love to have more young women and men understand how different their choices would be without access to abortion on demand, but I'm not willing to risk overturning Roe to wake them up. The notion of medical privacy and stronger Federal privacy laws is laudable. It's just not likely to happen anytime soon.

FWIW: You'll get yelled at here whenever you say something straight out of conservative dogma, even if you didn't understand it was. Just explain yourself again and then read the replies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. lol... its rather harsh tonight Karen
Peace and low stress.

The right to pursue happiness... to own property... is to enjoy privacy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Abortion is personal, bodily autonomy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkpops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
18. I've been thinking alot lately about the amendment process-
A forthright medical privacy amendment might be a good thing. An amendment verifying wall between church and state might be another. Unfortunately all amendments must start in congress, correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yeah. Maybe it's not so bad if abortion is outlawed.
After all, we're all so tired of this damned fight.


GREAT fucking post, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. At the risk of being bombed, maybe that is what has to happen
to wake people up. Roe reversed might cause a tidal wave of resentment against the right that could tip the balance back in our favor at which point the wrong could be undone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. No. That is wrong.
You know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. overturning Roe v Wade would be incredibly divisive to the country
If you've heard enough about "blue and red states" now, just think what woudl happen if it is tossed back to the states. Criminy. It would kick off a class war as well. Only rich women (men) could afford them (the rich can always afford them).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. You have to play the hand dealt to you
I wouldn't like it one bit, but is there an alternative besides howling into the night?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Howling into the night- is that like standing and fighting?
Is there a difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. When all ya have is 45 votes, probably less, because the
Dems up for re-election to the senate from conservative states join the vote to confirm him, yeah, you're howling into the night.

45 votes in the senate is like going to a gunfight with a knife. You can make a lot of noise but in the end you're gonna be the one on Boot Hill.

I think it makes more sense to select your targets or else you will get labeled the way Repubs would like to label Dems right now - the party of "no". Let's not fall into that trap. We have plenty of good stuff to fight over without this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. No, we DO have the filibuster. While so many of us were BRILLIANTLY
arguing against that fact, the agreement made a month or two ago left us with the filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. I so love it when it's my rights that aren't
worth fighting over. *sigh*

Don't expect much sympathy from me when they turn their sights on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. No, please don't do that either. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. What sucks is that we both know that in reality...
I'll fight for everyone else's rights whether they fight for mine or not. Sucks having principles. *sigh*

I just wish I didn't have to see people argue nearly every day around here that my rights are expendable. Makes me feel pretty damn unwanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. They argue against my protected political speech even more than
your reproductive rights.

Apparently, I'm an idealogue because I believe so strongly in the 1st Amendment that when it becomes compromised, I'll renounce my citizenship.

I understand exactly where you're coming from, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
52. Disagree
Ask yourself if you can look a woman in the eye who is forced to carry her rapist's fetus to term before we fix it back and tell her that argument. That's the problem with that kind of "silver lining in the long term" utilitarian argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. I was just talking about that with my husband..........
If it were overterned it would be a disaster and no one would ever vote PUB again. However, I just don't think we should let it get to that, even if it meant the Pubs would never win an election. I don't want to see my country go backwards, but that seems to be the trend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
22. Maybe my daughter won't kill herself after she reaches for that coat
hanger....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
24. Don't Worry Karen, DU'ers Are Often Just Reactive Non-Thinkers
who don't bother to read the posts.

You have a valid point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. It's a valid point to give up Roe v. Wade in the HOPE that people
will "wake up" and demand that the Constitution should be changed?

Instead of just defending the decision how it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
51. I read the post, it was very clear.
the thinking in the OP runs counter to Griswold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
49. 9th Amendment allows for privacy as a right
Unenumerated rights are still rights. The 9th Amendment handily takes on the wingnut objection to Roe v. Wade in one stroke.

It's a classic RW talking point to bemoan the "penumbra" in the prevailing decision. I would have worded it much less poetically, but still just as correctly.

So it was rightly decided; it just irks the Constitutional fundies who can't see past the enumerated rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
54. Well, as a woman, I thank you. I'm sure blacks in the slave states would
have thanked you. So if I get transferred to a state surrounded by many other states that pretend they are pro-life, I'm just screwed, huh? Or do I have to spend a fortune to go to a librul state for the abortion I desire.
I LOVE being a second class citizen, don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Technowitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
55. Locking
This thread has degenerated into a flamewar.

-Technowitch
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC