Roe v Wade is a crap ruling. It isnt about abortion at all. The fact it is the only thing that keeps abortion legal makes the right incredibly shaky. It is a classic example of ends justifying means.
It found anti abortion laws to be unconstitutional because they violate a constitutional right to privacy that exists (somewhere) in the Due Process Clause (Fourteenth Amendment). In finding this 'right to privacy' which they even point out isnt actually written in the constitution ("The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy...") they then found that it is not universal and that except for specific enumerated situations it can be regulated by the state ("We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. ")
That last statement justifies any regulation of privacy that the state feels is important. The supreme court has validated forced sterilization (1) and other things that I cant think of off the top of my head (but Im sure it involved firearms).
Everyone cries about the Patriot Act but they should be crying about Roe v Wade (Roe has actually been used as support to various parts of Title II of the Patriot Act).
At best law students, and a few interested people have read the entire ruling. Everyone else has second hand accounts and treat it like the left-wing holy grail that you cant comment on without drowning in the tears of yuppy-liberal-wannabe-know-it-alls.
Oh and the point is it should just be legislated legal instead of relying on a bad court case.
1. Sterilization for punitive reasons is illegal (like against sex offenders) but theraputic (it used to be believed sterilization could make people healthy?) and eugenic are perfectly legal although most of those laws were done away with after WW2. If you want to get ill Stump v. Sparkman is about a mother who had her teenage daughter sterilized for no other reason than the mother thought she was a whore and sleeping around.
It found anti abortion laws to be unconstitutional because they violate a constitutional right to privacy that exists (somewhere) in the Due Process Clause (Fourteenth Amendment). In finding this 'right to privacy' which they even point out isnt actually written in the constitution ("The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy...") they then found that it is not universal and that except for specific enumerated situations it can be regulated by the state ("We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. ")
That last statement justifies any regulation of privacy that the state feels is important. The supreme court has validated forced sterilization (1) and other things that I cant think of off the top of my head (but Im sure it involved firearms).
Everyone cries about the Patriot Act but they should be crying about Roe v Wade (Roe has actually been used as support to various parts of Title II of the Patriot Act).
At best law students, and a few interested people have read the entire ruling. Everyone else has second hand accounts and treat it like the left-wing holy grail that you cant comment on without drowning in the tears of yuppy-liberal-wannabe-know-it-alls.
Oh and the point is it should just be legislated legal instead of relying on a bad court case.
1. Sterilization for punitive reasons is illegal (like against sex offenders) but theraputic (it used to be believed sterilization could make people healthy?) and eugenic are perfectly legal although most of those laws were done away with after WW2. If you want to get ill Stump v. Sparkman is about a mother who had her teenage daughter sterilized for no other reason than the mother thought she was a whore and sleeping around.
Last edited:
