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.

Clements had said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law".

Even though she was a conservative, W didn't pick her.

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.

What will stop pukes from passing a federate law making abortion illegal?

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:

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.

"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.

what then?

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.

Sort of encompasses privacy, don't you think?

Of course,the Fourth Amendment deals with privacy as well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No. It's my name, and my state. I'm not very clever.

why?

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

You are going to need it.

:hide:

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....

Good luck!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Really? I like to discuss things, not throw insinuations around.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

:mad:

Nice to see you change your tune, though.

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.

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.

FUCK THAT.

I'M FUCKING SICK OF IT!

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

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.

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.

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

Apparently not.

Would have been a great 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.

Peace and low stress.

The right to pursue happiness... to own property... is to enjoy privacy...

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?

After all, we're all so tired of this damned fight.


GREAT fucking post, BTW.

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.

You know it.

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).

I wouldn't like it one bit, but is there an alternative besides howling into the night?

Is there a difference?

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.

arguing against that fact, the agreement made a month or two ago left us with the filibuster.

worth fighting over. *sigh*

Don't expect much sympathy from me when they turn their sights on you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hanger....

who don't bother to read the posts.

You have a valid point.

will "wake up" and demand that the Constitution should be changed?

Instead of just defending the decision how it is?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the thinking in the OP runs counter to Griswold.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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.

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?

This thread has degenerated into a flamewar.

-Technowitch
DU Moderator