In the landmark 1972 case of Roe V Wade, The US Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, ruled that a woman had a "fundamental" right to an abortion based in part on a perceived right to privacy based in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment as well as in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights as determined in the case of Griswold V Connecticut.
The next major decision on the abortion rights front was the 1992 case of Casey V Planned Parenthood. The case upheld the primary holding of Roe but established a different guideline. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, noted that the "Confusion and uncertainty (of Roe) complicated the task of the court of appeals". Additionally, the Chief Justice argued that the court had "over-reached" in aligning a woman's "right" to abort a fetus with those outlined in the in the Griswold case which established a precedent that right of an abortion to is "fundamental"
Why is all this so important? First, it is necessary to expose the duplicity of the left on the issue of Supreme Court Justices and the issue of Abortion. Democrats and their far left Special Interest groups, claim that they want Justices who decide cases based on the precedents (if any), The facts of the case, and the laws as enacted by congress. But the reality of it is that they prefer justices who are willing to step away from the basic principles of Judicial Review on this very divisive issue. Second, It helps us more clearly see the growing trend in the courts and congress to further dilute our federalist principles bay taking away from, and/or restricting the rights of, the states governments and making those decisions at the federal level.
Recently, the Federalist principle "states rights" were brought back into the forefront by a law passed in the state of South Dakota banning most abortions. My own reading of the South Dakota Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act leaves no doubt to this lay person as to it's intent. The SD Bill would make it illegal to procure, prescribe, Distribute or administer any drug, chemical or procedure that would lead to the termination of a Fetus at any time. The act clearly excepts contraceptive measures designed to and used prior to conception. Additionally, it removes from liability and possible criminal prosecution those actions deemed necessary to preserve and protect the life of the mother. However, it tasks the treating physician with the liability to perform their procedures with all possible care to protect and preserve the life of the fetus as well.
This bill is a direct frontal assault on the above mentioned Roe v. Wade case and its subsequent precedents. It acknowledges recent medical science that shows that an embryo is unique at the moment of conception...science that was not available until recently. The state of South Dakota argues that it's constitution "Requires that it enact and apply laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves, in this case a forming fetus.
Roe will be revisited and might be reversed by the courts. However, it would not outlaw or make illegal a woman's right to abortion. What it would do is, in effect return the decision to the states to enable them to enact legislation regarding the right to an abortion. While I do not believe that the US Constitution explicitly grants a "Right to Privacy", it has been determined by the Supreme court that the founders did intend for the citizens to have a right to privacy in their person. The government must have a compelling reason in order to obtain the necessary warrant to violate that privacy. What is more private than your physical body. Both the left and the right have it wrong on this issue. One wants to go so far as to allow for the government funding of Abortion while the other side would make abortion illegal and take away control of their own medical health from women. Accordingly, the reality of a distinct loss of personal responsibility and the adoption of situational ethics have lead us where we are today.
Most of us understand the possible ramifications of sexual activity between consenting adults when performed without the use of contraception. An individual acting in a objective and reasoned process would lead someone to either forgo the activity (abstinence) or use a reasonably effective form of contraception. Understanding that a person acting on behalf of their own rational self interest, would not have a child until such time as they have decided that the time has arrived to do so. This issue really puts into perspective the major difference between those who truly believe in liberty and those on the left who preach liberty but practice collectivism/socialism and argue for an increased role of the Federal Government in our every day life.
Powered By Qumana
