Wade wins Roe Vs. Wade 1973

You know the routine...

Hmmm...pre Roe-vs-Wade, where was abortion legal and where was it legal? I think "Roe" was suing over abortion law in Texas only, not against any sort of federal regulation that applied everywhere.

Oops...another reason to preview my posts.

I meant "where was it legal and where was it illegal."

Some North East states, such as New York had abortion.

One argument for abortion was that the 'rich' would just travel to these states for their abortion, and that only the poor would be forced to bear their children. So if this argument were true , then the big growth would be in the lower middle and lower income levels.

Considering results, well the population of 'native born' americans (I put this in quotes deliberately) would be higher, so there are two possibilities:

First, with a higher population, there would be great competition for jobs, more 'native born americans' willing to work at the lower wage area. Possibly more 'socialistic' programs as these people would vote for them, a less conservative more liberal america. Perhaps it would be more populist.

Second, these people prefer not to take the jobs, and drive growth and innovation creating a society of entreprenuers.

I think the first is more likely.

As an interesting piece of trivia, "Roe" (can't remember her actual name right now), is now pro-life.

My recollection of this period is that the states had very wide variations in their laws. For a while New York had a system which permitted abortion if the pregnancy endangered the health of the mother and that included mental health. Women would go to a psychiatrist and say they were depressed due to their pregnancy (more an overstatement than a lie) and get their abortion approved that way.

Without Roe vs Wade some state laws would be very complicated. The attempt to find a middle way between no restriction and a prohibition with a threat to the life of the mother as an exemption was very popular with state legislatures. Both sides in the current Kulturkampf would like very much to forget that.

Tom

option 1 It takes another decade but 30 or so states legalize, then ten change their minds. The coastal and lakes states stay legal, much of the interior opts for various forms of restruct but under ten bar all procedures in all circumstances.

option 2 The politics of the 70's would see a wave of legalizations. RTL took a while to organize. So you would then see some rollbacks and a lot of unhappy legislatures. Do not see the two coasts ever making illegal. Most of the smaller heartland states would either make illegal or restrict greatly. Just one Droog's reading of US politics. Of course would make state politics even more poisioned than now.

option 3 Back alley abortions continue to be performed by people barely qualified to be ambulance medics, in conditions that would make American Civil War field surgery seem sterile by comparison, putting the mother's life and health at risk. Except for the wealthy, who continue going to another country to have their abortions.

option 4 The pro-choice side makes the long march through the state legislatures the way the RTL people did. Net probably comes out at 30-35 states mostly legal. Remember that many of the RTL bills that pass do so because the legislators presume the courts will strike them down.

option 5

Back before Roe Vs. Wade if you got a girl pregnet you married her you did not have a child out of wedlock .
In the early 60's very few of us had sex before we were 18 years old .
it was very hard to get birthcontral of any kind at that time .
Hell at time the best birth contral was a wedding ring if you had sex you got one . My father told me before you have sex with a girl think of sleepping with her for the rest of your life and that will stop you a lot .
Sex ed was what you learned on the street from the guys .
My wife thought that if a guy kissed her tits she would get pregnet not if I came in her . Thats why we were married due to no sex ed and bad luck on are part . And abortions were unheard of by most of us at that time .
Most of the movies you see today would of been R rated when I was a teen . Rember at this time PlayBoy was less than 8 years old in 1964 .
How many of You can rember why girls could not wear pattion leather shoes . Watch some of the shows from that time that is how it was in the early 60's .

Well, I'm pro-choice but i think Wade should have won. The Decision was at best poorly written and they might have used another way to justify it. The truth is though, the Supreme Court abused its power there and concocted a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist in the Constitution. Again I'm libitarianish so I'm all for privacy but it's nowhere there. I think exactly what they did was say amendments like the 5th and the 14th were protecting certain privacy rights so there must be a general right to privacy. Thats bs. The majority voted how they felt (like they do now all the time) and then made up some bs to squeeze it into the Constitution. If their reasoning were true, the 1st amendment could just say you have a right to free speech and then we're all supposed to assume that the press and religion are included. They are of course and any reasonable person should draw that conclusion but because they are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that shows that the founders meant for the Amendments to the narrowly construed and taken literally without embellishment.

Also I forgot, Ward come on man not here

I am missing too much knowledge and detail from the argument line here, but my tendency is to think that given another 10 years or so someone would challenge it again and that time win

Grey Wolf

One thing that we tend to forget, (but which we lawyers like to blather about) is that the decision was made based (at least in part) on a woman's 'right to privacy'.

The problem is that this is not a 'right' enumerated in the constitution, and a lot of other less controversial laws have since been passed that restrict some free speech and other rules based on this right of privacy, such as some of the anti-spam laws.

Ward said:

Back before Roe Vs. Wade if you got a girl pregnet you married her you did not have a child out of wedlock .

Click to expand...

You mean that "bastard" wasn't even a real word back then??

Of course cads got women pregnant, and then moved to the other end of the country under an alias!

Norman said:

One thing that we tend to forget, (but which we lawyers like to blather about) is that the decision was made based (at least in part) on a woman's 'right to privacy'.

The problem is that this is not a 'right' enumerated in the constitution, and a lot of other less controversial laws have since been passed that restrict some free speech and other rules based on this right of privacy, such as some of the anti-spam laws.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the Ninth Amendment???

Raymann said:

Well, I'm pro-choice but i think Wade should have won. The Decision was at best poorly written and they might have used another way to justify it. The truth is though, the Supreme Court abused its power there and concocted a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist in the Constitution. Again I'm libitarianish so I'm all for privacy but it's nowhere there. I think exactly what they did was say amendments like the 5th and the 14th were protecting certain privacy rights so there must be a general right to privacy. Thats bs. The majority voted how they felt (like they do now all the time) and then made up some bs to squeeze it into the Constitution. If their reasoning were true, the 1st amendment could just say you have a right to free speech and then we're all supposed to assume that the press and religion are included. They are of course and any reasonable person should draw that conclusion but because they are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that shows that the founders meant for the Amendments to the narrowly construed and taken literally without embellishment.

Click to expand...

Have you any idea what the Ninth Amendment says???

Half the problem with Roe vs Wade may well be that the majority decision was written by possibly the most unfit and inept Supreme Court justice of the century. Any comparison of his decisions(because I say so) with, say, Thurgood Marshall's, raises the serious possibility that Roe v. Wade might have been much more secure had Marshall or Brennan written it.

Heck, I studied it in school and am convinced that I personally could have written a better decision with a greater chance of standing the test of time. To start with, that national standards on medical care can and do exist is quite clear...

I mentioned this much earlier in the thread (several months ago), but I'll say it again.

Supposedly Justice Marshall was providing "tips" to Jane Roe's people--he told them to argue the 14th Amendment, or something to that effect. That strikes me as a BAD thing.

So, this is what the argument was based upon :-

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws


is it ?

I wasn't really sure why people were mentioning the 9th Amendment, as well


Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Grey Wolf

chrispi said:

Are you familiar with the Ninth Amendment???

Click to expand...

OK, the relevant portions of Justice Blackmun's opinion reads:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back as far as ... [1891], the Court has recognized that a right to persoanl privacy ... does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts the Court ... found that right in the First Amendment ... ; the Fourth and Fifth Amendments ...; the penumbras of the Bill of Rights...." And on and on.

The main thing is that the Right of Privacy upon which Roe v. Wade was premised, is not explicitely outlined in the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) doesn't specifically mention a right of privacy.

The point I am trying to make is that other areas of law are now formed on this concept that was defined most clearly in Wade, and that there would be other impacts beside the obvious, many more people born in the US, perhaps less immigration, etc..

Norman said:

OK, the relevant portions of Justice Blackmun's opinion reads:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back as far as ... [1891], the Court has recognized that a right to persoanl privacy ... does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts the Court ... found that right in the First Amendment ... ; the Fourth and Fifth Amendments ...; the penumbras of the Bill of Rights...." And on and on.

The main thing is that the Right of Privacy upon which Roe v. Wade was premised, is not explicitely outlined in the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) doesn't specifically mention a right of privacy.

The point I am trying to make is that other areas of law are now formed on this concept that was defined most clearly in Wade, and that there would be other impacts beside the obvious, many more people born in the US, perhaps less immigration, etc..

Click to expand...

The Ninth Amendment states that just because a right is unenumerated, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that's the whole point. The right to privacy is considered an unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment.