US Abortion policy

[Grinkle]

I want to respond to the below snip from another thread and my response OT for that thread so I'll start a new one.

Question is Was the original Roe vs Wade an activist decision? or the more recent decision by the SCOTUS? Which one is more based upon the rule of law? Interpretations vary, so an absolute correct answer is unachievable.

I view the RvW decision as activist. I am in favor of the RvW policy, not how the US got there.

SCOTUS has purview where constitutionality is concerned - the more of a stretch applying that document to a specific case strikes me, the more I want to call that activism.

The constitution says nothing about abortion. SCOTUS based that ruling on the Bill of Rights providing the right to privacy, which is also never mentioned in the constitution. So, the reasoning went something like -

1st amendment provides for freedom of religion / association / beliefs
3rd amendment provides for protection against quartering soldiers in homes
4th amendment provides for protection against unreasonable search and seizure

All of that adds up to an implied protection of privacy. Abortion restriction is a violation of that protected right between a woman and her doctor for the first trimester of pregnancy. After that, the state has a gradually increasing interest in protecting the rights of the fetus with 2nd trimester abortions being ok for the health of the mother and 3rd trimester abortions almost never being ok.

All of that sounds optimal to me policy-wise, but declaring that this what the constitution provides for is, imo, absurd. I think this is a clear case where SCOTUS wanted to shape US society in a certain manner and did so.

I think the recent SCOTUS decision that the constitution is mute on abortion is correct - imo abortion policy is the purview of medical regulation, however that comes about. States can regulate if the Feds don't (which is where we are now more or less) or the Feds can regulate.

IMO congress should codify the RvW policies into Federal law. The constitution does not cover this.

 

[dlu]

Nice explanation

 

[dlu]

The thing I can say is that some people will support a side of an issue not knowing exactly why, justify their opinion by a simplification to a binary black-white, polarize it to what seems logical to their liking, and subsequentially rationalize their own self imposed indoctrination towards an unwavering final rigid mindset. At times in direct conflict with other morals and ethics the person holds to be true.

With the abortion issue. Most people hold the opinion that premeditated murder is immoral. Yet, making the choice of the life of an unborn versus the life of a living mother, if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, does not register a conflict, even if that choice produces a hierarchy of some life is more valued than another, yielding 'the premeditated taking of this particular life is more justified than the taking this life of another'.
This though is only one aspect of the abortion issue ( such as unwanted child, adoption, economic welfare of mother and child ).

The abortion issue is not alone. Police at times have to decide hostage taking situations. Triage at hospitals may decide who lives and who dies. Complications associated with medication, save the woman and children first in times of crisis, .... For everyday life, the values placed upon $ and time, risk assessment is something done quite often, and not so immediate, thus presented not in exactly those terms. If there were endless resources, the town council would not have to decide between spending on another ambulance vehicle or fix the potholes in the roads the ambulance has to drive upon.

The vast majority of people living their lives and making choices are not crazy, not lent to extremism, but do go about as decent citizens, not having to give much thought to complicated issues. Yet when presented with an issue some seem to revert to that of the opening paragraph, or recklessly prod others in that direction. With any luck those stay in the minority, and leave the others willing and able to compromise.

Case in point of attempting to polarize an issue with media and dumb politician major
Recent shooting in Montreal.
- one policeman shot and killed
- one innocent bystander killed by a police person
- all media attention on policeman shot
- very little media on 'police shoot first' against innocent bystander, Jewish btw
- french media agenda simplifies a 140 page manifesto to incel hating, even if no women hurt
- mayor of Montreal chimes in with gun control issue ( she smarter than the police spokesman )
- police spokesman says a lot is unknown <-- only truthful person here

That is a bit rough and jagged expose, and maybe nonsensical as the arguments are not fully developed.

 

[gleem]

Two other amendments were applicable to R v W's constitutionality, IX and XIV.

Amendment IX declares that just because a right is not explicitly written in the Constitution does not mean that it is not retained by the people.

Amendment XIV is more general in that all US citizens shall not be deprived of liberty (to do as one pleases) without due process of laws. Thus, SCOTUS has declared that abortion is not a liberty.

Since in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, Texas specifically noted that abortion rights is not specifically given in the Constitution, it would seem to make Amendment IX null and void.