Roe v. Wade looms over gay marriage cases

[Judi Lynn]

Source: New York Times

Roe v. Wade looms over gay marriage cases
By ADAM LIPTAK
New York Times News Service
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:01 a.m.

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court hears a pair of cases on same-sex marriage on Tuesday and Wednesday, the justices will be working in the shadow of a 40-year-old decision on another subject entirely: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from that decision, with some saying that it was needlessly rash and created a culture war.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and a champion of women’s rights, has long harbored doubts about the ruling.

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.


Read more: http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130324/PC1601/130329603/1263/roe-v-wade-looms-over-gay-marriage-cases

[SunSeeker]

1. WTF--Ginsburg actually said that? Roe was "too far, too fast"?!

I just lost a ton of respect for Ginsburg.

I agree with the quoted law prof:

But an article that will appear in Discourse, an online legal journal published by The UCLA Law Review, proposes a different account. “The Roe-centered backlash narrative, it seems, is the trump card in many discussions of the marriage cases,” wrote Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times reporter who covered the court and now teaches at Yale Law School, and Reva B. Siegel, a law professor there.

“Before Roe,” they wrote, “despite broad popular support, liberalization of abortion law had all but come to a halt in the face of concerted opposition by a Catholic-led minority. It was, in other words, decidedly not the case that abortion reform was on an inevitable march forward if only the Supreme Court had stayed its hand.”

[elleng]

3. 'Ginsburg has suggested

that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.'

[SunSeeker]

4. Very disapointing.

Women's lives cannot be turned upside down while the states "work it out." Enough women had died of back alley abortions. If it is a constitutional right, it must be protected in every state. If 40 other states had prohibitions at the time, the decision properly discussed questions needing to be answered. It is the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Texas Supreme Court.

[caseymoz]

6. True. But I believe part of her thinking is

. . . we likely wouldn't have a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court now if Roe had been ruled differently. Not only that, propaganda has been telling her that the decision was a mistake.

For myself, I agree with you totally. The decision was correct. What was really wrong was the dysfunction of our legislative process and the Conservative response to it.

[AndyTiedye]

15. So Now They Are Going to Turn the Clock Back 40 Years With a Stroke of the Pen

Now we KNOW the Supremes are going to overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity.
Not merely weaken it, but overturn it entirely.

Back to square one.

[elleng]

2. 'Ginsburg has suggested

that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.

But Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the two couples challenging California’s ban, said the Roe ruling was a different case on a different subject and arose in a different political and social context. The decision was “a bolt out of the blue,” he said, and it had not been “subject to exhaustive public discussion, debate and support, including by the president and other high-ranking government officials from both parties.”

“Roe was written in a way that allowed its critics to argue that the court was creating out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right,” Boutrous said. “But recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to marry dates back over a century, and the Supreme Court has already paved the way for marriage equality by deciding two landmark decisions protecting gay citizens from discrimination.”'

[davidpdx]

5. The lawyer's argument seems like a reasonable response

There has been ample debate over same sex marriage. Comparing the two cases, even for the breath of the decision, doesn't seem like it is right.

[elleng]

14. Yes. Thanks.

[mwooldri]

7. Sounds fine to me to use Roe v Wade... the Mexican Supremes used it in its decision.

This is definitely something that can be used. It means that the US Supreme Court would now have to consider the ruling of a neighbouring country's ruling because that neighbouring country used US Federal laws as reasons to make same-sex marriage lawful in Mexico.

[DhhD]

8. Dual citizenship between countries and between states is a part of the new Global Movement.

Global citizenship is a part of business, ethics and morality. Judgments; therefore, re-judements for a smaller contained area, would allow for the flexibility needed by a changing society. People could easily move to an area that fits their needs.

[mountain grammy]

9. What the court did with Roe v Wade was to say all women can make their own choices..

Before that, only women of means had a choice and that was either their private physician or take a trip to Ca or NY or any other state where abortion had been made legal. Anti abortion laws were, and always have been for poor women. As usual, men in power feel the need to control women, and that, my friends, is what this has always been about. As a woman, I find this need for control outrageous. Can I look to the constitution, written by men for men, for relief? Apparently not. Time to bring back the ERA. As for marriage equality, I think it'll be a slam dunk.

[duhneece]

10. Yup. Roe v Wade was when America said, "We trust women"

Roe v Wade is when American women quit dying from illegal, unsafe abortions.
Roe v Wade saved lives so I can never think it was a wrong ruling for any reason. Guess it's a good thing I'm not an attorney.

[mountain grammy]

12. Me too!

[spicegal]

11. I read the article, and disagree on both counts. Roe v Wade is nothing like the marriage equality

issue. Secondly, I do not believe that turning Roe v Wade over to the states would have made the abortion issue any less contentious. It will always be with us, because despite the fact that a significant majority of Americans do NOT want Roe v Wade overturned, we will ALWAYS have the minority who are VIOLENTLY opposed to abortion under any circumstances. In other words, you will never win these people over no matter what. The verdict is already in on abortion. A majority of people believe that abortion should remain legal, safe, and as rare as possible, that first trimester abortion should be legal w/restrictions late for term abortions determined by fetal viability, genetic deformities unsustainable outside the womb, and health/life of the mother.

[mountain grammy]

13. and most of the "minority" opposed to abortion are men, specifically, male preachers, priests,

rabbis and imans, and their congregations. Men controlling women, but don't give a damn about that child after it's born.

[obama2terms]

16. Overturning roe v. wade would be a HUGE mistake

If I was ever in a situation where I got pregnant and didn't want the child, I would put him/her up for adoption. But it's not my or the gov't's position or place to tell other women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Why is this even an issue now?

[blkmusclmachine]

17. Time for Ginsburg to retire.