martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 85,183
- 35,694
- 2,300
Correct.Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."
Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.
Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.
What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.
The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.
What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.
The right to privacy is also clearly codified in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.
No, it isn't. The 4th is about criminal searches. The 3rd is about troops during wartime, and the 5th is about due process, none of which have anything to do with "privacy" as stretched out by Roe.