Do women have a right to make their own decisions about pregnancy and birth, even including having an abortion if they want one, or does the government have the power to interfere with such decisions and tell women that they are required to carry a pregnancy to term? Where does the government's power over us end and our own power over our selves begin?
Background Information
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws which outlawed procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene.
A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. This last case was dismissed as something that the Court could not rule on because no specific damages could be demonstrated.
Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that:
State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.
The Supreme Court first noted that the laws prohibiting abortion were relatively recent, having been passed in the latter part of the 19th century. Thus, they could not be argued as having a long standing in tradition and common law. On the contrary - early abortions before "quickening" were not prosecutable offenses going back a very long time in English law. So:
It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.
The Court also addressed the question of whether or not there existed a rational basis for the law. Some argued that the laws were passed because of the dangers inherent in such a procedure - but those dangers had long since decreased as medical science improved.
The State also argued that it had an interest in protecting prenatal life - however, there was no record of such a purpose in the Texas case and the claims were contradicted by the fact that there were no laws against self-induced abortion.
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
So, if there is little rational basis for State intervention, is there also a general right to privacy which covers a woman's ability to decide whether or not her own pregnancy should go to full term? As to a general right to privacy, the Court held:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.
As to whether or not this general right to privacy should encompass pregnancy, the Court said:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.
The Court did not, however, agree with the plaintiffs' argument that a woman therefore had a right to have an abortion any time and for any reason. Instead, they agreed that the State does have some valid interest in regulating abortion, so long as such regulation does not make abortion impossible. Thus, the State may restrict abortions in the second and especially third trimester in the interest of protecting the health of the mother.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Stewart noted that earlier decisions in Griswold and Eisenstadt led logically to this one:
...we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Significance
With this decision, abortions became legal for all women across the United States. Even today, the decision is hotly debated - both by people who believe that life begins at conception and by people who do not think that any rights beyond those expressed by the plain text of the Constitution should be judicially recognized and protected.
Cash said:
The Federal Government not only has the right...but the duty to "step in there".
The federal governement doesn't have rights. It has powers. Specifically, it has the powers that are explicitly given to it and no others. All other powers are reserved for the states. You can't just wave your hands and create a new powers for the federal government.
Ok...so my wording was incorrect by using"right" instead of "power"...but I fail to see how advocating the protection of civil rights is inventing new powers for the federal government.
turin said:
I'm probably misinterpreting things here. why is everyone feeling so suprised and betrayed to find out mccain is a conservative? I've always liked him for his relative honesty and bluntness, not because he agrees with me about everything.
I usually vote democrat-- I even vote green for local positions-- but I'd take an honest, honorable conservative over a disingenuous (read: normal politician) liberal any day.
so you're ok with a party that rolls back civil rights law, environmental protections, etc., etc., as long as its representatives do so "honestly and honorably"?
sorry, i just can't fathom how someone who usually votes democratic--or green party, for christ's sake!--can vote for candidates who toe the present republican party line.
the fashionable "all politicians are dishonest assholes" fetish, which apparently overrules any need to agree with a candidate's or party's policy positions, makes absolutely no sense to me.
i should add that i used to respect mccain for the same reasons you probably do, even though i'm a democrat. but i unsentimentally tossed him overboard when he started advocating policies that have nothing to do with conservatism in any meaningful sense of the word. he's doing it only to get ahead in the party, and that's as disingenuous as can be.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother.
McCain doesn't want to leave it up to the states, he said he wanted a constitutional amendment, failing that, he'd leave it up to the states. It's not about states rights, that a cop out, or else he would have said that he didn't support an amendment.
On the Rape or Incest thing, this is a pet peeve of mine. If you honestly believed that an abortion was taking the life of a human being you would not make the exception for rape or incest. We don't execute rapists, why would we execute their children?
The reason that people make that exeption is because they do not believe that you are taking the life of a human being, they believe that the mother of the child is a slut if the sex was consensual and she deserves to be punished by being forced to carry the unwanted child to term. Thats all it means. It's chickenshit misogynist rhetoric.
I've never been a fan of McCains but this is unforgivable. I hope the American people can get together and decide that government is too big when it enters your uterus.
I don't see how him being pro-life some how proves he isn't a moderate. Especially since there are pro-life Democrats all of whom retained their seat this election and Bob Casey, who is pro-life, got overwhelming support from the Democratic party to beat Santorum.
wcsANTHONYwcs said:
Good for McCain. I love how you fucking politcal people twist everyones words. He is saying that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and the law then taken up with the states. This is a good thing. Fuck Big Government. Thats an issue expressly given to the states. Same thing with gay marrige...marrige is a states deal. The federal government has no right to step there to tell you what you can OR CANT do.
Obviously some people have already mentioned that your point is wrong, but I'd also like to say that you really shouldn't be allowed to argue about marriage if you can't even spell it.
PatrickY said:
As always, exclusions for rape and incest are mindbogglingly chickenshit copouts. If it isn't the fetus' fault the condom broke, then it's certainly not the fetus' fault it was conceived via rape and/or Appalachian romance.
It's also not the mother's fault that it was conceived that way -- that's the point.
Expecting a woman to go through the experience of pregnancy and delivery of a child conceived in that way is probably a special kind of hell... pretty ridiculous to call that a copout (even if you are anti-abortion).
It IS a chickenshit copout regardless of your postion. The vast majority of people against abortion claim they are so because ending the life of a fetus is wrong, a view that is logically inconsistent with allowing an exception for rape or incest. Think about it. If the life of the fetus is THE reason why abortion should be illegal, then it should be illegal in ALL cases, PERIOD. Allowing for an exception essentially says that the mother's emotional well being is more important than the fetus' life. As PatrickY said, from the fetus' POV, all sex acts are equal. So the distinguishing cahracteristic is: Consent. Outlawing abortion with the above exceptions means a CONSENTING woman should have to deal with the consequences of her actions (read: be punished for her promiscuity). In such a postion the life of the fetus is irrelevant. Either that or they are guilty of moral reletavism (and try getting a ANY conservative to admit that).
"The reason that people make that exeption is because they do not believe that you are taking the life of a human being, they believe that the mother of the child is a slut if the sex was consensual and she deserves to be punished by being forced to carry the unwanted child to term. Thats all it means. It's chickenshit misogynist rhetoric."
Good for you. I've often thought that people claiming to be pro-life are really just anti-sex. There seems to be an obsession with the sin-punishment-redemption thing.
fingerbo said:
McCain's ethical core began eroding the second he let Bush's (well, Rove's, actually) smear tactics against his family during the 2000 election run-up slide. But in the last few years he has taken his basic decency---and I think he is a basically decent man---and buried it, shit on it and buried it again. You look at him now on TV and he appears as if someone cored him out and all that's left is a thin, brittle shell. He looks and sounds hollow. He looks beaten. His voice has no strength. He has no convictions any more. His naked desire for the presidency has made him forego any/all ethics he ever had. I suppose that makes him a perfect Republican candidate for higher office.
Plus, I hate to be ageist, but I don't want a guy starting his presidential term in his seventies. Experience is good, but I really think the closer to the grave these guys are, the less likely they are to think progressively (of course there are exceptions to that rule, but McCain's a Republican and they're not really known for progressive thinking, are they?). Their futures are short, so why should they care how it all turns out? Just because humanity is doomed doesn't mean we need to race towards oblivion.
McCain's ethical core began eroding at least 20 years ago when he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar as a member of the Keating 5 during the Savings and Loan collapse in 80's which required over 3 billion dollars of Federal money to bail out.
McCain's only ever appealed to me in comparison to Dubya & co. It's never been any secret that he has strong conservative viewpoints and that he is definitely in the correct party. His apparent honesty and slightly more moderate stances on certain things make him as respectable as genuine (not RINO) Republicans come, but that's not very high up my list.
geo35 said:
Full Disclosure: I'm pro-choice with only very few restrictions.
Fingerbo summed it up about McCain very well. And Cash makes a good point that civil rights are a federal issue. But in my gut, I don't want any more "federal issues." I want to see smaller federal government and more decisions returned to the states (and in fact their counties.)
Look at all the great civilizations of history, the relatively small countries and cultures - France, Spain, Greece, Germany, the U.K., Italy (just to name a few European ones for example). They are all the size of American states, and they all have their own language and their own distinct culture. If you travel across the 48 contiguous United States, you see the same thing... I've lived in L.A., San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, & MInneapolis. I've traveled and have relatives in Seattle and numerous other cities. EACH of these places had distinct cultures, just like most of the countries of the world that happen to be about the same size.
We waste an enormous amount of time, money and energy, and create a shitload of animosity, by having a bunch of power brokers in Washington trying to get Wyoming ranchers, New England professors, Seattle techies, California surfers, Mississippi bible thumpers, and the rest of everybody else all on the same page. What? All these vastly different people are supposed to AGREE on something as divisive as abortion or gay marriage or racial quotas or prayer in schools?
As much as I support the decision in Roe v. Wade, I'd just as soon turn all these kinds of issues over to the individual states.
So, balakanization is the way to make the US work better?
Waiter! I'll have some of what he is smoking.
Not to mention that when those "great civilizations of history" earned their reputations, they weren't exactly "relatively small countries and cultures." Each of them was, or attempted to become, an Empire. The nations that remain may not have the same names (Italy, for example instead of Rome) but they still are the remnant core of empires.
The great civliizations weren't "great" as in "really cool!" but "great" as in "bigger than you, and you better become like us or we'll roll over you!" Their greatness was in the breadth and depth of their power and cultural influence.
geo35 said:
Full Disclosure: I'm pro-choice with only very few restrictions.
Fingerbo summed it up about McCain very well. And Cash makes a good point that civil rights are a federal issue. But in my gut, I don't want any more "federal issues." I want to see smaller federal government and more decisions returned to the states (and in fact their counties.)
Look at all the great civilizations of history, the relatively small countries and cultures - France, Spain, Greece, Germany, the U.K., Italy (just to name a few European ones for example). They are all the size of American states, and they all have their own language and their own distinct culture. If you travel across the 48 contiguous United States, you see the same thing... I've lived in L.A., San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, & MInneapolis. I've traveled and have relatives in Seattle and numerous other cities. EACH of these places had distinct cultures, just like most of the countries of the world that happen to be about the same size.
We waste an enormous amount of time, money and energy, and create a shitload of animosity, by having a bunch of power brokers in Washington trying to get Wyoming ranchers, New England professors, Seattle techies, California surfers, Mississippi bible thumpers, and the rest of everybody else all on the same page. What? All these vastly different people are supposed to AGREE on something as divisive as abortion or gay marriage or racial quotas or prayer in schools?
As much as I support the decision in Roe v. Wade, I'd just as soon turn all these kinds of issues over to the individual states.
So, balakanization is the way to make the US work better?
Waiter! I'll have some of what he is smoking.
Not to mention that when those "great civilizations of history" earned their reputations, they weren't exactly "relatively small countries and cultures." Each of them was, or attempted to become, an Empire. The nations that remain may not have the same names (Italy, for example instead of Rome) but they still are the remnant core of empires.
The great civliizations weren't "great" as in "really cool!" but "great" as in "bigger than you, and you better become like us or we'll roll over you!" Their greatness was in the breadth and depth of their power and cultural influence.
oh, and, uh, to add to that, italy wasn't actually "italy" basically until the twentieth century. prior to that, it was more a collection of countries that shared a language (usually) and little else. and to varying degrees, this is the same with all of the european countries you mentioned. everyone had to go from a collection of municipalities and states to "countries", and they all generally did it for the same reasons that the colonies became, well, united and states.
anotherartstar said:
On the Rape or Incest thing, this is a pet peeve of mine. If you honestly believed that an abortion was taking the life of a human being you would not make the exception for rape or incest. We don't execute rapists, why would we execute their children?
The reason that people make that exeption is because they do not believe that you are taking the life of a human being, they believe that the mother of the child is a slut if the sex was consensual and she deserves to be punished by being forced to carry the unwanted child to term. Thats all it means. It's chickenshit misogynist rhetoric.
I've never been a fan of McCains but this is unforgivable. I hope the American people can get together and decide that government is too big when it enters your uterus.
And this is why I'm pro-choice! Every day I see walking examples of why abortion should be legal and in some cases.. dare I say mandatory! Some people just shouldn't be having children in the first place, but anyway....
Let's say your daughter/sister/best friend gets pregnant, the biological father is some piece of human garbage and she made a big mistake in being with him in the first place. She's not ready for a child because she's too young, doesn't make enough money, etc. Shouldn't it be HER decision whether or not she wants to carry a child even if the logical outcome is giving the child up for adoption?
As if I didn't already have enough reason not to like McCain!
This has little to do w/ McCain, but while we're on the topic of choice...
Anti-choice, anti-sex education, anti-contraceptive Dr. Eric Keroack is now in charge of where our $$$$$ will go in US dept. of health title X family planning programs. kinda hypocritical, maybe even unethical?
Colinism
Atlanta, GA
July 2005
NOV 20, 2006 09:43 AM