Danger in overturning Roe v. Wade

Most prolifers do not realize the grave danger that freedom loving Americans face if Roe v. Wade (hereinafter abbreviated to RvW) is overturned.

By reading the decision in RvW, what the judges determined was NOT that women had a right to abortion, but rather than they had a right to privacy. Should RvW be overturned, it is our right to privacy that is being overturned, not the right to kill unborn babies. It seems that no matter where we turn, we are in a quandary as a result of this case. Keep it, and millions of babies are killed. Overturn it, and what little privacy we still have will be gone with the wind.

Make no mistake, I am strongly pro-life, but the ramifications of overturning this case are far more sinister than the vast majority of people on either side of the argument realize.  So before you go clamoring to overturn this case, carefully weigh what the true results will be.

If this case is overturned, the overturning of it would be the same as saying that we have no right to privacy.

In RvW, it was medical privacy that was at issue, although I don't believe (it has been years since I read the RvW decision) that the privacy in the case was limited to or specified as medical privacy.

If my memory on this point is correct, it would be any right to any type of privacy that would be forfeited if this case is overturned.

If there are any lawyers reading this, would you be so kind as to do a quick re-read of the decision and provide any definitions of privacy that were included, to further help tencz57 understand?

The right to "privacy" isn't specifically outlined in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  But privacy is rather attached to our right to own property.  Because it is ours, they can't infringe by being invasive or tampering with it in order to spy on us.  Abortion, in my opinion, is a right to life issue but because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power over the issue, the 10th Amendment says that the whole thing should be a state-by-state issue.  And in the end, those women who abort unwanted children have to stand before God and explain their actions anyway.

God gave us the power to think and act for ourselves, but that doesn't mean we aren't held accountable for our actions and the consequences that result.  People in positions of power have it even worse because they're held accountable for the entire populace they govern. 

so from what i read . it seems if RvW is overturned and a woman has an Abortion it will be public record . if a woman visits a abortion clinic it will be public record . if thats the case , it's wrong IMO . personal decision should be just that

FWIW , i don't believe in abortion but i do believe in our Constitution . where as what ever a woman decides should be private . her life , her baby , her soul  

jklca said:

If this case is overturned, the overturning of it would be the same as saying that we have no right to privacy.

In RvW, it was medical privacy that was at issue, although I don't believe (it has been years since I read the RvW decision) that the privacy in the case was limited to or specified as medical privacy.

If my memory on this point is correct, it would be any right to any type of privacy that would be forfeited if this case is overturned.

If there are any lawyers reading this, would you be so kind as to do a quick re-read of the decision and provide any definitions of privacy that were included, to further help tencz57 understand?

jklca,

As I sit here in my "bozo" outfit, I too am trying to figure out what you mean by "invasion of privacy". How would a woman's privacy be breached if she did not have the option of an abortion?

Dyne said:

The right to "privacy" isn't specifically outlined in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  But privacy is rather attached to our right to own property.  Because it is ours, they can't infringe by being invasive or tampering with it in order to spy on us.  Abortion, in my opinion, is a right to life issue but because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power over the issue, the 10th Amendment says that the whole thing should be a state-by-state issue.  And in the end, those women who abort unwanted children have to stand before God and explain their actions anyway.

 

God gave us the power to think and act for ourselves, but that doesn't mean we aren't held accountable for our actions and the consequences that result.  People in positions of power have it even worse because they're held accountable for the entire populace they govern. 

Dyne, You've aptly explained the situation, but I believe there should be modifications made to R.vs.W.  As is, if the woman decides she wants an abortion the biological father has zero, zip, nada, say so in the decision even if they are married.  The father should also have an equal say in the childs birth unless of course it will interfere with the mothers life.  I'm sure this is probably a small percentage, but how many beautiful and wonderful children may have been born if the father could have taken over the responsibility once that child was born.  We also must take into consideration how many women would give just about anything they own now to be able to go back and reverse their decision to abort that-their child.  No, we do not live in a perfect world, especially when you consider worldwide there are over 146 million orphans.  That's almost half of our entire population.  PHEW! The sexual drive is very strong, but just look at the results of it's misuse. Rampant aids in Africa, and of course the orphan statistic mentioned above, among others.  God help us.

"Government has no business in this issue. Just like Steroids in Baseball, none of my business or the governments."

Why? 

jklca said:

Most prolifers do not realize the grave danger that freedom loving Americans face if Roe v. Wade (hereinafter abbreviated to RvW) is overturned.

By reading the decision in RvW, what the judges determined was NOT that women had a right to abortion, but rather than they had a right to privacy. Should RvW be overturned, it is our right to privacy that is being overturned, not the right to kill unborn babies. It seems that no matter where we turn, we are in a quandary as a result of this case. Keep it, and millions of babies are killed. Overturn it, and what little privacy we still have will be gone with the wind.

Make no mistake, I am strongly pro-life, but the ramifications of overturning this case are far more sinister than the vast majority of people on either side of the argument realize.  So before you go clamoring to overturn this case, carefully weigh what the true results will be.

uh-huh.... any other rights emanating from the penumbra that I need to know about that'll be quashed with the reversal of Roe?  Roe is based on one of the most poorly reasoned bits of legal taffey we've ever had the disservice of suffering through.

 The "right" of privacy in Roe is crap... to use a term of art.

 Surely such a right exists but the right from that case is a house built on sand.

Roe v. Wade was not the first Right to Privacy case, this actually occurred with Griswold v. Connecticut where the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibitng the sale of Birth Control item.  It is in this case that Justice Douglas finds a Right to Privacy as a penumbra emanating from the U.S. Constitution.  Unlike many states, such as Arizona, there is no express Right to Privacy in the U.S. Constitution. 

The Supreme Court in its more recent decisions has been leaving these social issues for the states to resolve.  This is appropriate.  However, I am concerned about any decision that could be intepreted as eliminating a right to privacy.  There are many in government and society who would view this as a wholesale invitation to tell people how to raise their children, how to educate them and attempt to impose their forms of political correctness on us. 

When government is not restrained, it attempts to use other competing elements of the society such as the church to promote itself.  The right to privacy is important in imposing this kind of restriant upon government.

Future is Now said:

Roe v. Wade was not the first Right to Privacy case, this actually occurred with Griswold v. Connecticut where the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibitng the sale of Birth Control item.  It is in this case that Justice Douglas finds a Right to Privacy as a penumbra emanating from the U.S. Constitution.  Unlike many states, such as Arizona, there is no express Right to Privacy in the U.S. Constitution. 

The Supreme Court in its more recent decisions has been leaving these social issues for the states to resolve.  This is appropriate.  However, I am concerned about any decision that could be intepreted as eliminating a right to privacy.  There are many in government and society who would view this as a wholesale invitation to tell people how to raise their children, how to educate them and attempt to impose their forms of political correctness on us. 

When government is not restrained, it attempts to use other competing elements of the society such as the church to promote itself.  The right to privacy is important in imposing this kind of restriant upon government.

Not so certain Griswold was the first but no matter... the notion that rights emanate from a shadow is pretty much persmission to make up whatever one wants.

Of course we don't want privacy eliminated... that's why we have (amongst others) the fourth amendment.  Reasonable intrusions upon our privacy are permissible and the body of case law on the issue is immense.

Eliminating Roe would do diddly in the way of rolling back privacy.  What it would do is toss the ball back to the states to regulate abortion as they see fit: A proper example of federalism at work in my opinion. 

blaze77535 said: Government has no business in this issue. Just like Steroids in Baseball, none of my business or the governments.

Why not?  Who is going to stick up for the baby that the abortion is going to kill?  Privacy is one thing and it should be recognized... but at some point the competing interests (the mother's right to privacy and the right of the baby not to be killed) switch priority in my opinion.

 oh... and... "TEXAS: One of the few states that can secede from the Union." is a load of hooey you paid too much for

Right to privacy as long as no one is killed born or unborn

THE WORLD'S VANISHING CHILDREN

http://pop.org/main.cfm?id=198&r1=1.00&r2=4.00&r3=0&r4=0&level=2&eid=829

“The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.”

mgo, you are beginning to sound like Ted Turner.  No offense intended!