Is Roe vs. Wade Valid?

[dujavi]

The case took place between Jane Roe and Henry Wade. Jane Roe was challenging the criminal abortion laws in Texas. Jane Roe got what she wanted (the right to end yound life, no matter the circumstance).

My Question is why does the case in favor of Jane Roe mean that everyone not just Ms. Roe can commit abortion.

Jane Roe was challenging laws in Texas. Why did the laws in every state change?

 

[wanderingone]

Jane Roe was challenging laws in Texas. Why did the laws in every state change?

Because a US Supreme court decision voids the need to have people in every state file the same case. If it's unconstitutional to violate a woman's right to privacy in medical decisions in Texas then it is unconstitutional in every other site also.

A Constitutional Right is Defined
In Roe, the Supreme Court found that a woman’s right to decide whether to become a parent deserves the highest level of constitutional protection. The Court also recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute and that a state has valid interests in safeguarding maternal health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting potential life. According to the Court, a state’s interest in potential life is not “compelling” until viability, the point in pregnancy at which there is a reasonable possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb. A state may — but is not required to — prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.

http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139531

 

[Ampoliros]

The case took place between Jane Roe and Henry Wade. Jane Roe was challenging the criminal abortion laws in Texas. Jane Roe got what she wanted (the right to end yound life, no matter the circumstance).

The woman involved - whose real name was Norma McCorvey - has since converted to Christianity and become a pro-lifer. It seems profoundly mistaken to blame her for the case's outcome.

My Question is why does the case in favor of Jane Roe mean that everyone not just Ms. Roe can commit abortion.

Jane Roe was challenging laws in Texas. Why did the laws in every state change?

If the laws in Texas were unconstitutional, as determined by the Supreme Court, then similar laws that denied abortion rights would have met with a similar fate.

 

[Erock83]

The case took place between Jane Roe and Henry Wade. Jane Roe was challenging the criminal abortion laws in Texas. Jane Roe got what she wanted (the right to end yound life, no matter the circumstance).

My Question is why does the case in favor of Jane Roe mean that everyone not just Ms. Roe can commit abortion.

Jane Roe was challenging laws in Texas. Why did the laws in every state change?

Contrary to popular belief Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal at least not to the extent which most right wingers say it did. Roe v. Wade says that 1st trimester are ok, and then applies the 10th adm giving the states the right to regulate there after. More or less the SC washed their hands of the issue and left it up to the state. Which explains why there are 51 different statutes on abortion.
One Love

 

[gengwall]

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. Roe Decision Section XI

Since the 14th amendment is applicable to all the states the decision also applies.

Note that the decision did not mean you can't ban abortion. Simply that you need to take into account the other "interests" involved and that bans can only be imposed when the state's interest has more weight than the mother's or anybody elses.

 

[dujavi]

The woman involved - whose real name was Norma McCorvey - has since converted to Christianity and become a pro-lifer. It seems profoundly mistaken to blame her for the case's outcome.

I think she will always be responsible for her actions, though she regrets it. God forgave here if she was washed clean with Jesus's blood, but I think she still has something to do with Roe vs. Wade.

 

[dujavi]

Thank you for that clarification, Erock83

 

[jayem]

Contrary to popular belief Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal at least not to the extent which most right wingers say it did. Roe v. Wade says that 1st trimester are ok, and then applies the 10th adm giving the states the right to regulate there after. More or less the SC washed their hands of the issue and left it up to the state. Which explains why there are 51 different statutes on abortion.
One Love

But how, when, and where states could regulate abortion is not really the "meat" of Roe v. Wade. By far, the most important part of the ruling, in my opinion, is section XI, where the legal status of a fetus is discussed. This is pasted from Justice Blackmun's majority opinion:


The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well- known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.(51) On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument(52) that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;(53) in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth,y all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.(54)[p158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the l9th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.(55)

Agree or not, this is the foundation upon which the whole thing rests. And continuing debate about whether a fetus is a "person" is the basis of all subsequent conflict.

 

[john crawford]

My Question is why does the case in favor of Jane Roe mean that everyone not just Ms. Roe can commit abortion.

Regarding your original question as to whether Roe/Wade is constitutionally valid or not, I would say it is not based on the fact that it violates the privacy rights of married men and women as well as their God-given procreative rights in marriage.

 

[sister_maynard]

How does it violate the privacy and procreative rights of married men and women? Roe v. Wade does not force couples to have abortions, it merely offers the option. If anything, banning abortion would violate that privacy. I'd just like some clarification on your precise meaning.

 

[Brennin]

Is Roe v. Wade valid? No. It does not even have a pretense of being rooted in the Constitution.

 

[john crawford]

Is Roe v. Wade valid? No. It does not even have a pretense of being rooted in the Constitution.

The question now becomes one of determining which SCOTUS decisions are valid anymore. Their Dred-Scott decision certainly wasn't.

 

[john crawford]

How does it violate the privacy and procreative rights of married men and women? Roe v. Wade does not force couples to have abortions, it merely offers the option.

The option is not equally offered to both husband and wife. Rather is the husband's option to procreate with his wife unconstitutionally denied.

If anything, banning abortion would violate that privacy. I'd just like some clarification on your precise meaning.

There is no need to ban abortion entirely. Rather is there a constitutional need to require paternal consent if the woman is married.

 

[Norseman]

The option is not equally offered to both husband and wife. Rather is the husband's option to procreate with his wife unconstitutionally denied.

And what about the woman's right to not have a child?

 

[Ampoliros]

Is Roe v. Wade valid? No. It does not even have a pretense of being rooted in the Constitution.

Oh please, entertain me as to how your position has even the vaguest hint of being supported by the Constitution. A good place to start might be pointing out the section in which the Constitution affords the fetus any legal rights, followed by why the fetus's right to live inside another human being trumps the womans's right to control her body.

 

[sister_maynard]

I understand what you mean now, crawford. Thanks! That's one of the points about abortion with which I would sometimes agree. I just have a tendency to see the borders of things- in this case situation in which a tired wife with so many children that she could barely afford to take care of the current children and absolutely couldn't stretch her time and energy to handle another one, but the husband really wanted another child and refused the permission for abortion. Then there's a deadlock, so they would probably keep the child under your model. Perhaps it could be given up for adoption, but what happens if the husband refuses to give up the child?
Edit- I've looked at the post just after your last, crawford, and I think that if there's an utter deadlock then it's hard to decide, but I would likely go with the woman's decision. It's her body. Paternal notification might be a good idea, but consent... that's where we hit the deadlock.

 

[john crawford]

And what about the woman's right to not have a child?

She don't have that right if she gets married.

Take a hint. Don't marry a man if you don't want to bear his children. Stay single or marry a feminist.

 

[Ampoliros]

She don't have that right if she gets married.

Take a hint. Don't marry a man if you don't want to bear his children. Stay single or marry a feminist.

Unbelievable. The sheer insanity presented in this one quote is appalling.

 

[john crawford]

I understand what you mean now, crawford. Thanks! That's one of the points about abortion with which I would sometimes agree. I just have a tendency to see the borders of things- in this case situation in which a tired wife with so many children that she could barely afford to take care of the current children and absolutely couldn't stretch her time and energy to handle another one, but the husband really wanted another child and refused the permission for abortion. Then there's a deadlock, so they would probably keep the child under your model. Perhaps it could be given up for adoption, but what happens if the husband refuses to give up the child?
Edit- I've looked at the post just after your last, crawford, and I think that if there's an utter deadlock then it's hard to decide, but I would likely go with the woman's decision. It's her body. Paternal notification might be a good idea, but consent... that's where we hit the deadlock.

In this case and for your sweet sake, sister, I will settle for paternal notification by either the abortionist or the health care insurance provider who paid for my wife's abortion, either before or after they proceed with the dirty deed. Deal?

 

[john crawford]

Unbelievable. The sheer insanity presented in this one quote is appalling.

What do you know about insanity? Were you ever locked up in a mental asylum or in a psychiatric ward against your will? Tell us about your personal experiences with, or knowledge of, insanity, doctor.