Discussion:
The Crumbling Castle Of Abortion
(too old to reply)
words of truth
2006-01-29 06:43:58 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200601230854.asp


The Crumbling Castle


On the thirty-third anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision seems
simultaneously to have become more sacrosanct than ever, and more
imperiled than ever. It is supposedly well-settled as a matter of law.
Even some former opponents of the decision believe that it has survived
for so long that it should not be overruled. The op-ed pages are full
of liberals who allow that Roe was never a well-reasoned inference from
the Constitution, but say it's too late to let it go.

And polls find the decision to be popular, so it seems to be protected
by both legal and political fortifications. Yet we are constantly
warned that the president is chipping, chipping away at Roe, and that
each of his Supreme Court appointments could be the last vote to
overturn it.

There are ways of resolving the apparent contradiction. Maybe the
explanation is that conservative Republicans are radicals, attempting
to unsettle what's settled and zealous enough that they might just
succeed. Or it could be that pro-abortion groups are crying wolf about
the danger to Roe: Surely each nominee to the Supreme Court can't be
the deciding vote against it. (Given the mercy an end to Roe would show
to the unborn, perhaps "crying lamb" would be a more appropriate
phrase?)

But we think that the best explanation is that Roe's apparent strength
is largely illusory. Take those polls. Do they really mean that 66
percent of the public (to use the figure from a December NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll) don't want the Supreme Court to allow state
legislatures to be able to prohibit third-trimester abortions? Surely
not: Polls find that even larger majorities want such prohibitions.
Many people believe, wrongly, that Roe protects only first-trimester
abortions, a misimpression that most polls (including the NBC/Journal
poll) go out of their way to foster. Many people also believe, wrongly,
that overturning Roe would automatically lead to a national ban on all
abortions. What polls on Roe really measure is public opposition to an
immediate national ban.

The relevance of these polls to actual political behavior is tenuous.
The public's support for Roe does not even translate into opposition to
the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees who might vote against it
- as public support for John Roberts and Samuel Alito makes clear.

Nor is Roe all that well-settled a precedent, which is perhaps what
occasions all the somewhat nervous claims that it is. The last time the
Court really reconsidered the issue, in a 1992 case called Casey, it
junked the trimester scheme that popular imagination and pollsters
still consider central to Roe. When the Court considered the biggest
abortion-related controversy of the last decade, in its 2000 decision
on partial-birth abortion, the authors of Casey could not agree about
what Casey meant.

In the partial-birth decision, the Court threw out laws in part because
they could (supposedly) sometimes be applied in unconstitutional ways.
In its Ayotte decision last week, it unanimously suggested that the
possibility of unconstitutional applications was not a good enough
reason to throw out an abortion law. State legislators cannot be blamed
for not being able to figure out what regulations constitute an "undue
burden" on the right to abortion, and thus will be struck down by the
Supreme Court, because the undue-burden standard depends on the
subjective feelings of the judges.

The Court would be perfectly justified in concluding that its attempts
to micromanage abortion policy have failed, in regarding this failure
as an indictment of its pretensions to have any special expertise or
authority to do so, and in scrapping Roe. In Casey, the Court argued
that many people have relied on the availability of abortion in the
event of contraceptive failure, and that this fact was a reason to
continue to protect a right to abortion. But legislatures are perfectly
capable of deciding what weight to give to that fact.

The justices may prefer to move incrementally. They may decide, when
they again rule on partial-birth abortion later this year, to rule
narrowly: to cede just enough legislative authority back to
legislatures to let them prohibit partial-birth abortion. Little by
little, they might restore democracy in this area.

Roe's twin fortifications are there to protect each other's weaknesses.
The alleged popular ratification of Roe is invoked to cover its legal
implausibility. But a truly populist constitutional law would allow
prohibitions on late-term abortions and substantial restrictions on
early-term abortions, so the majesty of the law and the authority of
the court have to be invoked against this threat. The only way to keep
the game going is through sleights of hand, diversions, and illusions:
Roe creates only a limited right to abortion; everyone loves Roe; it is
settled law; repeat as necessary.

The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed.
Bill
2006-01-29 16:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own bodies.
Post by words of truth
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200601230854.asp
The Crumbling Castle
On the thirty-third anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision seems
simultaneously to have become more sacrosanct than ever, and more
imperiled than ever. It is supposedly well-settled as a matter of law.
Even some former opponents of the decision believe that it has survived
for so long that it should not be overruled. The op-ed pages are full
of liberals who allow that Roe was never a well-reasoned inference from
the Constitution, but say it's too late to let it go.
And polls find the decision to be popular, so it seems to be protected
by both legal and political fortifications. Yet we are constantly
warned that the president is chipping, chipping away at Roe, and that
each of his Supreme Court appointments could be the last vote to
overturn it.
There are ways of resolving the apparent contradiction. Maybe the
explanation is that conservative Republicans are radicals, attempting
to unsettle what's settled and zealous enough that they might just
succeed. Or it could be that pro-abortion groups are crying wolf about
the danger to Roe: Surely each nominee to the Supreme Court can't be
the deciding vote against it. (Given the mercy an end to Roe would show
to the unborn, perhaps "crying lamb" would be a more appropriate
phrase?)
But we think that the best explanation is that Roe's apparent strength
is largely illusory. Take those polls. Do they really mean that 66
percent of the public (to use the figure from a December NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll) don't want the Supreme Court to allow state
legislatures to be able to prohibit third-trimester abortions? Surely
not: Polls find that even larger majorities want such prohibitions.
Many people believe, wrongly, that Roe protects only first-trimester
abortions, a misimpression that most polls (including the NBC/Journal
poll) go out of their way to foster. Many people also believe, wrongly,
that overturning Roe would automatically lead to a national ban on all
abortions. What polls on Roe really measure is public opposition to an
immediate national ban.
The relevance of these polls to actual political behavior is tenuous.
The public's support for Roe does not even translate into opposition to
the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees who might vote against it
- as public support for John Roberts and Samuel Alito makes clear.
Nor is Roe all that well-settled a precedent, which is perhaps what
occasions all the somewhat nervous claims that it is. The last time the
Court really reconsidered the issue, in a 1992 case called Casey, it
junked the trimester scheme that popular imagination and pollsters
still consider central to Roe. When the Court considered the biggest
abortion-related controversy of the last decade, in its 2000 decision
on partial-birth abortion, the authors of Casey could not agree about
what Casey meant.
In the partial-birth decision, the Court threw out laws in part because
they could (supposedly) sometimes be applied in unconstitutional ways.
In its Ayotte decision last week, it unanimously suggested that the
possibility of unconstitutional applications was not a good enough
reason to throw out an abortion law. State legislators cannot be blamed
for not being able to figure out what regulations constitute an "undue
burden" on the right to abortion, and thus will be struck down by the
Supreme Court, because the undue-burden standard depends on the
subjective feelings of the judges.
The Court would be perfectly justified in concluding that its attempts
to micromanage abortion policy have failed, in regarding this failure
as an indictment of its pretensions to have any special expertise or
authority to do so, and in scrapping Roe. In Casey, the Court argued
that many people have relied on the availability of abortion in the
event of contraceptive failure, and that this fact was a reason to
continue to protect a right to abortion. But legislatures are perfectly
capable of deciding what weight to give to that fact.
The justices may prefer to move incrementally. They may decide, when
they again rule on partial-birth abortion later this year, to rule
narrowly: to cede just enough legislative authority back to
legislatures to let them prohibit partial-birth abortion. Little by
little, they might restore democracy in this area.
Roe's twin fortifications are there to protect each other's weaknesses.
The alleged popular ratification of Roe is invoked to cover its legal
implausibility. But a truly populist constitutional law would allow
prohibitions on late-term abortions and substantial restrictions on
early-term abortions, so the majesty of the law and the authority of
the court have to be invoked against this threat. The only way to keep
Roe creates only a limited right to abortion; everyone loves Roe; it is
settled law; repeat as necessary.
The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed.
a***@yahoo.com
2006-01-29 16:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own bodies.
Smart right-wingers, especially elected officials, fear
any change in the abortion status quo. If Roe v. Wade
is overturned, it may cause a lot of political trouble
advantageous to Democrats and others further left.
As long as it remains it is useful as a tool for getting
donations and votes. This was why Bush first tried
to insert his personally controlled robot into the court
slot. When this failed he (or whoever runs him) let
the right wingers have their way in the expectation
that the Democrats would stop him. But as he
should have expected the Democrats did nothing
but posture and bluster, and now the fat's in the
fire -- Alito looks like another Scalia and I would
guess Roe v. Wade will soon be junked.
Johnny
2006-01-29 16:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
Post by Bill
Post by words of truth
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200601230854.asp
The Crumbling Castle
On the thirty-third anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision seems
simultaneously to have become more sacrosanct than ever, and more
imperiled than ever. It is supposedly well-settled as a matter of law.
Even some former opponents of the decision believe that it has survived
for so long that it should not be overruled. The op-ed pages are full
of liberals who allow that Roe was never a well-reasoned inference from
the Constitution, but say it's too late to let it go.
And polls find the decision to be popular, so it seems to be protected
by both legal and political fortifications. Yet we are constantly
warned that the president is chipping, chipping away at Roe, and that
each of his Supreme Court appointments could be the last vote to
overturn it.
There are ways of resolving the apparent contradiction. Maybe the
explanation is that conservative Republicans are radicals, attempting
to unsettle what's settled and zealous enough that they might just
succeed. Or it could be that pro-abortion groups are crying wolf about
the danger to Roe: Surely each nominee to the Supreme Court can't be
the deciding vote against it. (Given the mercy an end to Roe would show
to the unborn, perhaps "crying lamb" would be a more appropriate
phrase?)
But we think that the best explanation is that Roe's apparent strength
is largely illusory. Take those polls. Do they really mean that 66
percent of the public (to use the figure from a December NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll) don't want the Supreme Court to allow state
legislatures to be able to prohibit third-trimester abortions? Surely
not: Polls find that even larger majorities want such prohibitions.
Many people believe, wrongly, that Roe protects only first-trimester
abortions, a misimpression that most polls (including the NBC/Journal
poll) go out of their way to foster. Many people also believe, wrongly,
that overturning Roe would automatically lead to a national ban on all
abortions. What polls on Roe really measure is public opposition to an
immediate national ban.
The relevance of these polls to actual political behavior is tenuous.
The public's support for Roe does not even translate into opposition to
the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees who might vote against it
- as public support for John Roberts and Samuel Alito makes clear.
Nor is Roe all that well-settled a precedent, which is perhaps what
occasions all the somewhat nervous claims that it is. The last time the
Court really reconsidered the issue, in a 1992 case called Casey, it
junked the trimester scheme that popular imagination and pollsters
still consider central to Roe. When the Court considered the biggest
abortion-related controversy of the last decade, in its 2000 decision
on partial-birth abortion, the authors of Casey could not agree about
what Casey meant.
In the partial-birth decision, the Court threw out laws in part because
they could (supposedly) sometimes be applied in unconstitutional ways.
In its Ayotte decision last week, it unanimously suggested that the
possibility of unconstitutional applications was not a good enough
reason to throw out an abortion law. State legislators cannot be blamed
for not being able to figure out what regulations constitute an "undue
burden" on the right to abortion, and thus will be struck down by the
Supreme Court, because the undue-burden standard depends on the
subjective feelings of the judges.
The Court would be perfectly justified in concluding that its attempts
to micromanage abortion policy have failed, in regarding this failure
as an indictment of its pretensions to have any special expertise or
authority to do so, and in scrapping Roe. In Casey, the Court argued
that many people have relied on the availability of abortion in the
event of contraceptive failure, and that this fact was a reason to
continue to protect a right to abortion. But legislatures are perfectly
capable of deciding what weight to give to that fact.
The justices may prefer to move incrementally. They may decide, when
they again rule on partial-birth abortion later this year, to rule
narrowly: to cede just enough legislative authority back to
legislatures to let them prohibit partial-birth abortion. Little by
little, they might restore democracy in this area.
Roe's twin fortifications are there to protect each other's weaknesses.
The alleged popular ratification of Roe is invoked to cover its legal
implausibility. But a truly populist constitutional law would allow
prohibitions on late-term abortions and substantial restrictions on
early-term abortions, so the majesty of the law and the authority of
the court have to be invoked against this threat. The only way to keep
Roe creates only a limited right to abortion; everyone loves Roe; it is
settled law; repeat as necessary.
The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed.
j***@gmail.com
2006-01-29 17:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Johnny
2006-01-29 22:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
j***@gmail.com
2006-01-30 01:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
pro-lifers are DIRECTLY associated with communist rule. All hail
Comrade Bush!

http://countrystudies.us/romania/37.htm

Yours In Christ,
John
Dan Clore
2006-01-30 06:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
pro-lifers are DIRECTLY associated with communist rule. All hail
Comrade Bush!
http://countrystudies.us/romania/37.htm
Indeed, sexual repression and anti-choice attitudes form a
common bond between all forms of authoritarianism, from
fundamentalist Christianity to fundamentalist Islam to
Nazism and Stalinism.

See:
http://libcom.org/library/Irrational-in-politics-Maurice-Brinton
--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Terry Cross
2006-01-30 08:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Clore
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
pro-lifers are DIRECTLY associated with communist rule. All hail
Comrade Bush!
http://countrystudies.us/romania/37.htm
Indeed, sexual repression and anti-choice attitudes form a
common bond between all forms of authoritarianism, from
fundamentalist Christianity to fundamentalist Islam to
Nazism and Stalinism.
Why do you avoid mentioning Judaism? Sexual repression begins with the
Laws of Moses, yet you always target Islam and Christianity as though
Judaism did not exist.

Judaism not only represses sexuality, Judaism sexually mutilates babies
and children. Is that part ok with you when Jews do it, and upsetting
to you only when Christians and Muslims do it?

TCross
Dan Clore
2006-01-30 09:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Cross
Post by Dan Clore
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to make
decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
pro-lifers are DIRECTLY associated with communist rule. All hail
Comrade Bush!
http://countrystudies.us/romania/37.htm
Indeed, sexual repression and anti-choice attitudes form a
common bond between all forms of authoritarianism, from
fundamentalist Christianity to fundamentalist Islam to
Nazism and Stalinism.
Why do you avoid mentioning Judaism? Sexual repression begins with the
Laws of Moses, yet you always target Islam and Christianity as though
Judaism did not exist.
Judaism not only represses sexuality, Judaism sexually mutilates babies
and children. Is that part ok with you when Jews do it, and upsetting
to you only when Christians and Muslims do it?
Fine: add fundamentalist Judaism to the list. Also
fundamentalist Hinduism. Also other forms of Fascism and
Bolshevism. And anything else I missed.
--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
j***@gmail.com
2006-01-30 12:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Clore
Fine: add fundamentalist Judaism to the list. Also
fundamentalist Hinduism. Also other forms of Fascism and
Bolshevism. And anything else I missed.
It adds the most "shock and awe" to successfully assert that Bush has
communist tendencies.

Yours In Christ,
John
Ray Fischer
2006-01-30 05:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
In fact Muslim extremists are just as ant-choice and anti-woman as
you are. They, like you, hate freedom and they, like you, want to
see dissenters dead.
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
Johnny
2006-01-30 14:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
In fact Muslim extremists are just as ant-choice and anti-woman as
you are.
In fact. they are kicking your ass.
The proof is in the pudding, dipwad.
Post by Ray Fischer
They, like you, hate freedom and they, like you, want to
see dissenters dead.
Actually, they hate cowardly men like you who hate women and children.
Post by Ray Fischer
--
Ray Fischer
The Chief Instigator
2006-01-30 15:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
In fact Muslim extremists are just as ant-choice and anti-woman as
you are.
In fact. they are kicking your ass.
So you say, but you've given frequent notice of your non-amicable divorce from
reality.
Post by Johnny
The proof is in the pudding, dipwad.
You're certainly proving that your opinion has no value.
Post by Johnny
Post by Ray Fischer
They, like you, hate freedom and they, like you, want to see dissenters
dead.
Actually, they hate cowardly men like you who hate women and children.
I guess that's why he's a parent, right?

Idiot.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (January 28)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, February 4 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
j***@gmail.com
2006-01-30 15:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Actually, they hate cowardly men like you who hate women and children.
Men who want to outlaw abortion = Men who hate women because they have
a small penis and wish to control them.

Yours In Christ,
John
Johnny
2006-01-30 15:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Actually, they hate cowardly men like you who hate women and children.
Men who want to outlaw abortion = Men who hate women because they have
a small penis and wish to control them.
Yours In Christ,
John
If you think that statement was made 'in Christ' then why did you resort to
lying?
Christ was a fetus himself.
Wanna step back and analyze the reality if what being Christian is all about
and what the Roman Empire was about at the time of Jesus?
Peter
2006-01-30 16:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Actually, they hate cowardly men like you who hate women and children.
Men who want to outlaw abortion = Men who hate women because they have
a small penis and wish to control them.
Yours In Christ,
John
I would think a small penis would be easier to control !8-)
Peter
The Chief Instigator
2006-01-30 16:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Actually, they hate cowardly men like you who hate women and children.
Men who want to outlaw abortion = Men who hate women because they have
a small penis and wish to control them.
Yours In Christ,
John
heh. (Actually, John Wentzky has a different route in getting here - he had a
brother who was involved in a serious accident fifteen or so years ago, and
while recovering in hospital, said brother got a transfusion that wasn't
properly screened for HIV. He spent a lot of time being his brother's keeper,
after the accident, and took quite a bit of time off from his career with a
regional energy company to care for him...but the brother died, Duke Energy
fired him, and after he tried (unsuccessfully) to settle his termination
benefits, he's refused to work ever since...and by now, it's obvious no one
would hire him, given his less than subtle mental problems. Thus we see the
psychotic soul who frequently rants at the voices in his head.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (January 28)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, February 4 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
BOB
2006-01-30 05:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Johnny
Post by Bill
Quite trying to impose your personal beliefs on women's freedom to
make decisions in regard to their own
babies.
pussy pro-lifers.
Bullshit. Pro-Choice is indirectly allied with Moslem terrorism.
Then why is it that you anti-choice loons are Taliban wannabees, Joanny?
Mark K. Bilbo
2006-01-29 18:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by words of truth
Maybe the
explanation is that conservative Republicans are radicals
Pretty much.

Anyway, it's just a power grab. That's what the neocons are about. Power.
Increased federal power over citizens. As much power and control as they
can grab. Even to the point of destroying the old Republican idea of
"states rights."

Democracy? Hardly. Authoritarian, centralized, federal rule? Definitely...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...