A twist on RW rhetoric re: abortion

[LuckyTheDog]

Whether you think personally thing abortion is justified or not is hardly the issue. The issue is whether the government has the right to interfere in the decision -- and the kind of power they'd need to have if we wanted to grant them that right.

The Constitution does not grant the government the right to monitor the outcome of pregnancies or even to know about them. Giving the government those rights by judicial fiat would be judicial activism.

The Roe ruling, that says that the government has no such rights, is consistent with the Constitution.

Want to ban abortion? Amend the Constitution. But don't try to jam it down our throats with right-wing judges! :smoke:

[goddess40]

1. to amend the constitution to take away choice is a giant step backward

for all, especially women. When a person can't make a choice about their health that makes them less. Women don't need to take a giant step backward, we still haven't made it to the 100% equal line yet!

[LuckyTheDog]

4. Not the case I was making

I merely was making the case banning abortion would require giving the government unconstitutional powers. Yet, we on the pro-choice side hardly ever make the case.

The RW says "Where does the Constitution provide a right to abortionm huh?" And my response is: Where does the Constitution give the government the right to ban it?

Banning abortion is impossible without giving the government the power to require registration of pregancies and the power to monitor the outcome of preganncies. Where does the Constitution give them those rights? It doesn't.

Thus, the USSC did not "make abortions legal" per se. It merely ruled that the government had no right, under the current constitution, to ban abortions in the first trimester. The government's interest in the fetus, they say, starts when viability outside the womb has been established.

The far right has had 30-plus years to pass a constitutional amendment to "fix" that. But they have failed and now want to get their way by juducial fiat.

[seejanerun]

2. Didn't Dean come up with a good frame for this recently?

Similar to what you are saying--do you really want the government in on your family decisions?

[flamin lib]

3. Actually . . .

RvW says the state has no interest in regulating abortion during the first tri-mester, a limited interest during the second and can regulate abortion in the third.

The reason late term abortion laws have been deemed unconstitutional is that so far none have contained language to protect the life of the mother as was part of the original law decided in RvW.

Truth is, the RW doesn't want to overturn RvW because they need it too much to stir up the base.