The landmark legislation, Roe v. Wade, turns 39 today. The case was brought before the court by a pregnant, single woman that challenged the Texas criminal law that prevented her from having an abortion except on medical advise to save her own life. It was argued in December of 1971 and decided on January 22, 1973. The judges ruled 7-2 that the law was a violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There were protests yesterday in San Francisco. Both sides showed up to peacefully demonstrate; one side showing support for the Supreme Court's decision and a larger group protesting against the decision. One pro-life protestor, John Johnson, told reporters that "the pro-life movement is the civil rights movement of our generation." Civil rights and a 39-year-old Supreme Court decision can hardly be compared. In fact, such a statement could be considered racist.
Speaking of racism, GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has stated that he would ignore the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision if he were elected President.
When the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was illegal, Prince Edward County, Virginia closed their schools rather than comply with Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court declared (unanimously) this unconstitutional. Gingrich is taking the same position that southerners took toward civil rights. But, he's not racist, right?
Gingrich has even gone so far as to say he would arrest judges that ruled against his own beliefs. As a self-proclaimed "historian," he really should brush up on the Constitution - particularly the part on the Separation of Powers.
So, if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare to be unconstitutional, he can just ignore it? Have the judges arrested?
Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade. May the U.S. Supreme Court never have to make such a decision again as the decision about abortion is not one for the courts, but one for the people involved and only those involved.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 145
but you see..... I'm just going to go ahead and take the higher road... Like I always do when it comes to you. You and I know your mental and social inadequacies... they show and I only pity you in a way that someone pities a person who walks into a plane propeller on their own..... It's one of those pities that come with a "well, consider the source." ;)
Would you say the same thing about homosexual activists comparing "gay rights" agenda to the civil rights movement?
I actually think many of the proponents of Roe V. Wade are racist. Planned Parenthood has been known to willingly take donations by those who say they want the money to be used to terminate pregancies of blacks.
Speaking of PP here is a few quotes from its founder Margret Sanger:
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
Blacks have the highest rate of abortions. Other minoritites also have higher rates than whites.
I don't know of any pro-life people wanting to save the lives of just a particular "race".
So I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider comparing the Pro-Live movement with the Civil Rights movement as racist. Most want to uphold the God-given and Constitutional rights of the unborn who are unable to defend themselves.
Lee C. My thought exactly...
Would you say the same thing about homosexual activists comparing "gay rights" agenda to the civil rights movement?
Very good question. Followed up with excellent info.
Someone making a statement comparing a matter of personal choice to the atrocities that took place in the southern United States to blacks is just dumb.
It is a closer comparison to compare gay rights to civil rights because gays are sometimes "bashed" just for being gay as the blacks were beaten just for being black. Although, the situations are not the same and still could be seen as offensive to blacks to make a direct comparison.
Although I believe homosexuality to be against God's design for men and women, bashing homosexuals does no one any good. The difference between homosexuality and skin color is that one is a choice and the other is an innate characteristic. There is no theological, physilogical, or scientfic reason to believe homosexuality is an innate characteristic. It is only wishful thinking on those who want others to accept their sexual preference.
Unborn babies on the other hand are completely defensless. They can't change who their parents are. Many of us are willing to stand up for the unborn just as many stand up for those who are discrimnated against because of their skin color or other physical charateristics. The unborn are the most innocent. No matter what their "race" or "sexual preference" they are compleltely defenseless in protecting themselves from those who want to take away their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I highly recommend watching the 180 movie.
I don't know if you remember the kinds of racist rulings of judges against women on welfare who were condemned to forced sterilization back before abortion was legitimated.
There is no such thing as an "unwanted" child. Just unwanted parents. There are couples standing in line to adopt a precious child. Do you know of any man or woman who chose abortion for their child because they couldn't find a person willing to adopt?
We send man to the moon. We can do instant messaging around the globe. In 2009 alone our govenment spent $700 billion in a bank bailout, $787 billion for a so-called "stimulus" package, $410 billion for an omnibus appropriations bill. Yet we claim we don't have have the know how and the resouces to deal with some so called "unwanted" babies. Abortion on Demand is not an issue due to the lack of resources, but an issue due to the lack of priorities and morality.
ARISTOTLE, STEVEN JOBS, NELSON MANDELA, JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH, MARYLIN MONROE, JOHN LENNON, and ELLA FITZGERALD. Government writes laws to govern how adoption takes place and it is in some states, very simple for a mother to give up her rights to a child. But to adopt, the adoptive parents must jump through so many hoops that they must wait months if not years and even then may never get chosen to parent. Home inspections, drug testing, physicals, life history, finger printing, letters of recommendation from friends, pastors and employers just to name a few. It is not cheap, about $20,000 per child in some of the less expensive states. How about getting the government out of the way on the adoption process?
If a family goes through all the hoops for one child, don't you think that some of the previous effort could be used to reduce the cost/effort on subsequent adoptions? Or to put it in your terms, if the family did not sell the first child, could they not forgo part of even most of the process for the second or tenth? Did you know that in my state, the FBI must finger print the parents not just once for each adoption, but for each year that the parents attempt to adopt. That could be 6 years for two adoptions! Why! Do your fingerprints change that much over a 6 year period? Does that extra effort stop the potential or even reduce the risk that the child could be sold? Really?
Just because some despot takes the food of his people and just because the US chooses to burn corn for fuel, would not be a valid justification for killing someone. Even if it were the last piece of rice on the earth.
Republicans want "less" government but at the same time, they want government to make life choices for people?!
Where is abortion referenced here? I've read this passage a time or two or three over the years and I don't see it.
You could have women who think they want an abortion, go through the “The Test for an Unfaithful Wife” (Old testament law) but I really do not see how this helps your argument as it would be the lord who sits in judgment and not some doctor.
NIV:
“‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
The Supreme Court has rightly and definitively ruled on the issue. That decision takes precedence over all succeeding questions on the matter. The majority of the American people agree with the Roe -v- Wade Constitutionally decided Law. Those still harboring opposing opinions to that decision are thereby relegating themselves to live the rest of their lives in their Evangelical self righteous attitude to no avail. Such disagreement with the courts decision only serves ones own self indignation and does nothing to change that which is and will remain, established Constitutional law by which we all must abide.
The Bill of Rights absolutely stated that "All Men Were Created Equal". As such, slavery was measurably illegal and only tolorated for the personal benefit of rich plantation owners. ( many of which were our Founding Fathers)
Since neither the present, nor any forseeable Congress will attempt to overturn the Roe -v- Wade amendment, the law will stand and the vast majority of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum will support it's continued and lawful institution.
Those who oppose the law on religious basis, should remember, there is also within the Constitution a provision for the division and separation of State and Religion, as it should be. As such, the personal choices, beliefs, ethics and self imposed morals of religious individuals have no bearing on laws written within the U.S. Constitution.
Arguing/debating whether or not such a law is ethically moral or allowed under religious doctrine only leads to more arguing and debating with no actual adverse, negative nor any potentially reversal effect on the Constitutionality of the law and it's 1973 imposition upon the citizens of America.
Thankfully in America, Constitutional Laws are not enacted nor based on religiously moral convictions. If such was the case, the question would be, how would Congress ever decide which recognized religion to base our laws upon. {i.e.} Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Budism, Jewish, Evangelical, Hindu, etc. etc. etc.
Thanks for your opinion but, the Supreme Court is not suppose to make law. That is what the legislators are for. I find it "amazing" that the supreme court of 1973 found a right in the Constitution that no one has seen there before that time. Imagine what all can be done now under the "right to privacy". The supreme court "forgot" to read the Preamble of the Constitution which describes the "who" the Constitution was written for.
That is absurd. All laws are based on someone's moral convictions.
The root of the question in this case is who are "all men"?
I would assert that a 1 year old, a 1 second old and the baby that will be born in 1 second all have those same rights. I would also assert that a baby that was conceive 1 second ago also has those rights.
Anyone else that disagrees with me, would like to think they know exactly the moment that life begins, that is not knowledge that we humans really possess, nor should we presume to have such knowledge in order to make God like decisions.
A one-second-old cell has only the rights that the body sheltering it gives it.
And lets have some intellectual honesty here. If really don't know when life begins (which we do) should we not give the life in the womb whether one cell or a billion cells the benefit of the doubt?
Should a demolition crew destroy a building if there was an outside chance of someone being in it?
"If we really don't..."
My goal in writing the article is not to change anyone's mind. We can all have our own individual beliefs. But just as your religion is not my religion, my belief on abortion is MINE. The government does not tell me what God to worship and should not tell me what I can or cannot do with my own life and body.
And we do have laws about what a person can or cannot do with their body. For instance, we have laws regarding drug use and prostitution. Those who want to argue that abortion is about a woman's right to choose to do with her body as she pleases disregards the body of the unborn baby.
Should we stand by and let people of other countries commit genocide? Or do we have an oblicagtion to help protect the innocent.
Well, life, yeah, a separate entity, no. A sentient being, no....
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Thus, there is no “separation of powers” as you assert. Thus the government cannot establish a religion, and it does not say that religion cannot influence government! Newt knows this and I have heard him speak of it often, you need to brush up on the constitution yourself.
Conservatives know that all men were created equal and have rights that were given to all of us by GOD. No man or doctor can take those rights from us without due process., even if some of us cannot agree on when life begins. Thus civil liberties are not owned by a few of the oppressed but all of the oppressed. In fact most of the founders knew the importance of religion as the moral corner stone of society and government, without it there would be decay and eventual failure the system that they had created. I even found some historical evidence that shows the roots of the concept of the “Separation of Powers” itself is raciest and leveraged by the early KKK against the Catholic church(http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2006&month=10).
You attempt to draw a relationship between those who want the choice to kill the unborn and how they cite the division of church and state, when it is Obama care that will force all of us to pay the bill for people to do this to their own child, even if it is against our religious view. As I said above, the “establishment of religion” clause is to keep the state from dictating religion and not to rid government of religion. In this case the state is cramming the religion of evil down our throats like the tyranny that it is, and at its own peril and is evidence of the immoral decay.
The checks and balances -- that's another phrase I'm not sure is specifically written, I'd have to look it up -- but those are meant to keep one power from becoming TOO powerful. Although sometimes it creates gridlock, such as now.
First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It seems very clear that the government has no right to establish a national religion, for that, I think we agree. But you make it sound as though our government should be void of religion. Where is that written? In fact, the unambiguous phrases “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” clearly sais that a free expression of religion is permissible.
-- James Madison, 1819
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others.
-- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J M on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.
-- James Madison
Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 1776
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
You are right, with the exception of public (government) functions and offices, and in those circumstances, any endorsement of religion is strictly prohibited. There is, most assuredly, a wall of separation, between church and state.
some thoughts to share:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981041883
We do not need a President Gingrich.
Lots of things are marketed to me, doesn't me I buy them all. Just because they make women aware of their services doesn't mean they have to have an abortion. That's illogical.
There are marijuana stores -- several in my city. They advertise in a local free magazine/newspaper that I read. There's also advertisements for massages with happy endings, strip clubs, etc. I don't go get a hand-job or a lap-dance or weed because they advertise it to me.
Doctors.
Personally, I think women should not have abortions past the 12th week but just because that's my opinion doesn't mean it's everyones.
How do you define "religous belief"?
Life does begin at conception. It is a scientific fact. There is no theological, physological, or scientific evidence to the contrary. To believe otherwise is a "religious belief" not backed by any facts. But it appears you want laws passed that agree with your own "religious beliefs".
And no, I don't want laws passed that agree with my religious beliefs. I want law and religion to be separate entities.
Why is your belief that life does not begin at conception considered a non-religious belief.
When the sperm and egg meet, they form a zygote. These cells divide to form the embryo and an outter layer of protection. It isn't till week four that the process called implantation even takes place, where it burrows into the uterine wall and the placenta begins to form.
Week 5 it becomes a "baby"
Would you sign a petition in support to ban abortions after 5 weeks?
What I would NOT support is making the ultrasound test required to verify the time so expensive that it prices some poor women right out of the ability to have an abortion.
As I've stated over and over, I don't think abortion should be anywhere in the law books. Women should be free to do as they wish with their bodies with no laws surrounding it or banning it -- telling her she is right or wrong.
I also talked to one of my female friends after I commented and she reminded me that it might take a week or so to even get into the doctor to have the abortion. This is why setting time frames gets really dicey.
So no amount of theological or scientific evidence is going to change your mind?
I often wondered why the pro-abortion people say it's a woman's right to choose, yet if she chooses life then it's the man's responsibility to pay for her choice. Does the father ever have any say in the matter if it may mean he will have to pay child support? If not isn't this like taxation without representation? To my knowledge, a woman who goes to a sperm bank to be inseminated can't track down the donor and make him pay child support if she chooses not to kill the child. Yet, if she becomes pregnant naturally the man is required to pay child support and in many cases is not given much if any in the way of visitation and parental rights. How is it that once sperm enters a woman the man loses all choices yet if she becomes pregnant and chooses to let the child live the man is now legally responsible? Why is it that the woman can choose if the man is just a sperm donor or the legal father? If this is truly a private decision between a woman and her doctor then the woman and her doctor must be willing to pay for the consequences of their decision.
If the guy says, I don't want kids BEFORE he sleeps with a woman and she gets knocked up, he also should NOT have to pay child support.
Perhaps written contracts would be best before every sexual transaction. ;)
It does not work that way in the court of law.
And there really is not a "right to choose" life and death of the unborn.
We have abortion on demand because of activist judges want to usurp the law.
What it comes down to is that you claim to not know when life begins and you don't have a problem with the killing of innocent life in the womb.
Ronald Reagan - "Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."
Is it ok to kill those who don't have the ability to speak for themselves and defend their own right to live?
Further, I do not believe that any man nor woman, regardles of faith or religion, has the right to denigrate a woman for exercising her Constitutionally provided right to make decisions for herself in regards to her personal choices in pregnancy. It is she and she alone who in private life, devoide of all outside interference, must decide what is best for her.
I have noted with interest over the last few years how certain politically ideological people constantly envokethe laws of U.S. Constitution and champion that document as being their way of life. While at ther same time those Constitutional loving people attempt to challenge many of the rights granted to all citizens under/by that honorable document.
Let us all respect the wishes, choices and decisions of others, while keeping our chosen faith {in} the church to which we believe .
Are the personal forms of morality of those who don't consider themselves "religious" neutral? And if so what makes them neutral?
And I ask again:
Where do laws, any laws come from. How does a person determine what is right and what is wrong?
With that said Christians / Jews in general typically do not directly infringe on your freedom, where other religions “Radical Muslim’s” would like to convert you or kill you… Christians /Jews hold the 10 commandments as a basic building block of our morality. You yourself enjoy the fact that some of our laws are based on the those commandments like stealing and killing. Or do you wish that we did not have such laws and you would rather convert or die?
That's what dictionaries are for.
LOL...that's funny, Lee.
The meaning of words change, eh? So, you would agree that the interpretation of the Constitution should also change over time?
"Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
And no I don't think the interpretation of the Constitution should change over time. I can't figure out why you would say such a thing.