| Previous Post
I happen to be in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade, but not because of pro-life or pro-choice considerations. Roe vs. Wade should not have happened in the first place. The Constitution neither upholds nor denies (a) a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy; (b) the fetus's right to life; (c) the woman's right to refuse to undergo a medical procedure; (d) the proposition that the foregoing are none of society's business; or (e) the proposition that the state has no compelling interest in the continuance or termination of any pregnancy. On all of this, the Constitution is silent. Where the Constitution is silent, the Supreme Court should likewise be silent. These questions should be decided by Congress or by the state legislatures. It's even questionable whether Congress should have any say. Consider this, from the Bill of Rights:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then what is contemplated in Amendment X is what will happen. What the Framers planned for is what will happen.
|
That is not what Roe v. Wade did.
It did not give the right to have an abortion, it ruled that the right was already in the constitution, under the right to privacy.
That right was not given, the ruling is that it was already present. It is the same logic used for interracial marriage. The right already exists, the states were infringing on already existing rights.
The Supreme Court doe not give rights, it determines what rights already exist. They have done that ever since they told us that is what they do in 1803.
