With a Supreme Court nominee coming soon, talks about the next Supreme Court possibly overturning Roe vs. Wade are in the air. Roe vs. Wade is such an important issue for democrats that several liberal groups have geared up for the fight, you have NOW having a march in support of Roe vs. Wade, you have Sen. Kennedy voicing his opposition to a yet to be named nominee, and you have all other liberal groups ready to prevent a strong conservative from getting nominated. My question to you, dear readers, is this: is overturning Roe vs. Wade really a bad thing?
Contrary to popular opinion, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will not be outlawed. What will happen is that abortion will become a states right issue. In other words, each individual state will get to decide what abortion laws best suit their views and preferences. If California wants to have unlimited abortion, so be it. If, on the other hand, Texas wants to have abortion limited to only the first trimester, again, so be it.
What Roe vs. Wade did was take what should have been a states right issue and force the pro-abortion decision down the throats of everyone else, whether you agreed with the decision or not. It would be the equivalent of a pro-lifer making abortion illegal in all circumstances and taking this to the federal level, thereby enforcing that law on all states, irregardless of each states particular view on abortion. How would you pro-choicers reading this feel about that?
Abortion, like all other moral issues, should be left up to the people to decide. If you happen to like abortion, convince your fellow citizens to vote in favor of abortion, if you dislike abortion, convince your fellow citizens to vote against abortion, but don’t try to make it a federal law to force it on every state.
I feel this way not just with abortion, but with all moral issues. If you want abortion, let the people vote on it, if you want to ban the death penalty, let the people vote on it, and if you want gay marriage, let the people vote on it (Have you ever noticed that almost every democrat issue, abortion, death penalty, and gay marriage, has been forced on us through the courts, not through the voting process or legislation the way it should have been – yet democrats call us fascists?). What I don’t like, and this is the case whether I agree morally with the outcome or not, is for someone’s beliefs to be shoved down our throats and giving us no say in the matter.
So if you value democracy, if you respect the peoples voice, join hands with me and support overturning Roe vs. Wade. In addition, every time you meet someone who is fearful of Roe vs. Wade being overturned, turn around and ask them, “Don’t you value democracy”?
HP, you are so completely off base with this one, man! NOTHING you said holds water. Do you simply not realize that some decisions must be made at the federal level in order for their to be equality across the board?? Geez, man .. do you honestly NOT see the problem if there were 50 different variations on abortion law throughout the land? If California were to have liberal abortion laws and Nevada did not, people would simply stream into that state for the services. This lead right back to the problem of access. Poor women who desired an abortion in states with restrictive laws would not be able to afford it and the better off would. We’d be right back to the problem access for the financially wealth off but not for the poor AND it would be state by state by state. Also, do you honestly think the hard right and hard left would sit by and let only the states that they were predominate in have laws they were supportive of? There would be constant strife from both sides in whatever state that disagree with their point of view. ANY such issue that affects the ENTIRE nation on this scale does not need to be decided 50 different ways. How would you think it’d be if civil rights laws were done that way? Let’s say it’s ok to discriminate and have Jim Crowe laws in the deep south but not in the northeast or west coast? Following your rationale, I could invision a whole host of scenarios where we’d have widely divergent rights and privileges across regional areas of this nation. This would further lead to splintering of the country culturally and morally. Our early themselves knew there had to be a limit to states rights as the country grew to prevent such a split as erupted in the civil war. That is why federal law ALWAYS superceeds state law and such provisions as interstate commerce are clearly laid out. This is a vast and diverse land my friend and issues that affect all the people in such a deep way as abortion, civil rights, moral issues, etc. can NOT be solely left to the states or we will clearly be left with varying rights and privleges that are so divergent depending on what state you live in that we might as well fracture into 50 tiny little independent nations.. Frankly, I’m shocked that you can’t see that though I shouldn’t be surprised. Your stringent partisanship seems to leave you with the inability to rationally engage any issue from a truly objective point … lest you not tow the party line. How sad.
And another thing .. think of this .. By your way of thinking, women might have the right to vote in New York but not in Alabama, blacks and whites might be in the same schools in New Hampshire but not in South Carolina. This is the kind of road your rationale would lead us into were it nor for the federal government stating that ALL Americans have certain rigths across the board, no matter what state, county, or town you live in. States ought to be able to decide issues for themselves such as property rights, zoning, etc. You simply must realize if you look at this truly rationally that the cohesion of the nation is dependent upon huge fundamental issues being available and equal across all 50 states. HP, otherwise, could you truly expect the country to not fracture further? As a final point of note … I can not think of any single industrialized nation whether it is governed by conservatives or liberals that has issues such as abortion and the death penalty decided from section to section of their nation. Doing so would surely lead to a more fractious atmostphere than they already had … the same as it would here.
I’m in favor of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. We have an abortion doc here who performs full term abortions in our State.
Hey Myke,
With all due respect Myke, your whole comment begs the question. You assume abortion is not the intentional killing of an innocent child, and only with that premise in hand do you go on to talk about how various abortion laws would affect society.
In case you weren’t aware of it, I strongly disagree with your assumptions. In other words, I believe that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent child. We can leave that debate out of this topic for now, since we’ve had that discussion ad nauseum over on Oso’s board (for those who wish to see that discussion go here and here). My only point here is that what about those people that strongly disagree with you?
I know that liberals tend to see things as black and white. If you’re against abortion, that’s paramount to ‘being against women everywhere’, if you’re against gay marriage, that has to mean you are a ‘homophobe’ and a ‘bigot’. But I’d like to propose a new level here Myke, lets call it the gray area. The area of moral issues where ‘intelligent people can honestly disagree’. In other words, irregardless of what side you pick in the gray area, that does not automatically allign you with either side of true black and white issues. In other words, if you are against gay marriage, that doesn’t make you parallel to a racist. Or if you are against abortion, that doesn’t make you equal to someone who didn’t want to give women the right to vote. In the same respect, if you are for gay marriage that does not automatically mean you intentionally want to destroy the traditional marriage, or if you are for abortion, that doesn’t make you in favor of killing torturing children. So can we move past the exagerations please?
But here, in case you still don’t understand my point, let me explain myself using as an example something that I know you care deeply about, like I do with regard to abortion; gay marriage. If your premise that all divisive moral issues should be uniform across the country in order to avoid division is true, than on what ground do you say that Bush’s attempt to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage is bad? Remember Myke, atleast with the gay marriage ban Bush is doing it the democratic way, since all constitutional amendments have to get a supermajority. So here you have a very divisive issue that, I presume you agree, should be decided at the federal level, right? So can I assume you would support Bush’s constitutional ban on gay marriage?
Remember Myke, you can’t respond in the negative simply because you personally agree with gay marriage. Afterall, this is a democracy here, and the vast majority of Americans disagree with you. Yet since you don’t like letting each state decide their own fate, than I must assume a constitutional ban is the only viable option a conservative has.
You see, my view of the world is different. While I wholeheartedly believe gay marriage should not be allowed, I don’t see it as a black and white issue. In other words, good intelligent people can disagree on gay marriage. So on that basis I was against Bush’s constitutional ban, since it usurped (although to a MUCH lesser degree than Roe vs. Wade) the peoples right (the next generations, for example) to vote their own moral choices. But since your premise won’t allow you that option, I wonder on what basis would you argue against a federal ban on gay marriage?
Lets be consistent here, why is a constitutional amendment required for gay marriage shouldn’t that be a state issue how about election laws wasn’t that always a states issue until Bush v Gore, how about medical marijuana, how about the right of a person in a persistent vegetative state to die with dignity.
There are three equal branches of government its in the constitution, just because your team runs two of them now you can’t discard the third as a strict constructionist you should understand that. Without court orders a large number of states would have segregated schools.
Do I believe in democracy yes, but not everything is voted on. Why not have a vote on social security then?
My point in all of this is not necessarily the states right argument, although that has some bearing on all of this, my point is with who should decide moral issues, judges or the people? I choose the people. In other words, I am concerned more about democracy, not states right issues.
As far as the three branches of government, I couldn’t agree more, my point here is that moral issues should be handled through the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
Excellent points Alfonso,
I also heard there was taxpayer subsidization for abortions. That too, is wrong.
Completely agree WNM!!
HP wrote:
“…. my point is with who should decide moral issues, judges or the people? I choose the people. In other words, I am concerned more about democracy, not states right issues”.
I say the people should decide moral issues. My 2 cents.
HP — I’ve been meaning to respond to your response but have been pressed for time. I’ll try to be succinct.
No, my argument doesn’t beg the question. Surprise, surprise .. I don’t believe wanton abortions should be allowed. I agree with further restrictions (especially with partial birth and ANY 3rd trimester procedures) and as techology gets better and better and the unborn are viable and younger and younger ages, more restrictions would then be acceptable. As I’m not a female, though, I’m not prepared to fully support outlawing all abortions as there is a significant degree of validity to the argument of a woman having the right to choose what to do with her own body .. though there is the caveat as to what degree you’d allow anyone to do anything with their own body.
Do remember one other thing, HP, I abhore the constant need to fit everyone into only two molds in this country: liberal or conservative. It’s simply hogwash. I may agree with you firmly on some things and with a card carrying member of the ACLU on others. I’m not of a mind to think I need to label myself and stick to agreeing with every thing of which the label corresponds with. Must you? Some times I think this is the beauty of the Euro style parliamentary system .. it does allow for a more pluralized approach to politics and ideological thought. But that’s a whole other thread ..
Now, as for the gay marriage issue .. I think I can respond negatively against the amendment as I think it’s killing a fly with an elephant gun. I don’t ever think it’s a good idea to amend the constitution as let’s face it, in this day and age, it’s very very difficult to go back on such a thing. It’d also be shameful to place an amendment to the constitution that would essentially restrict the rights of a single section of society. Would that be truly what such a document of rights is for?
I much, much prefer the Supreme Court issuing interpretations that effectively establish law on some issues that are simply to volatile for revolving lawmaker to effectively deal with … especially at the state level. Regardless of what anyone things (pro or con) to Roe v. Wade, since it’s proclamation, the issue of abortion hasn’t been as major of an issue, especially health wise, as it was when there were 50 different states setting 50 different standards for it. HP, abortion will never be something that everyone agrees on but we simply can’t take issues such as that and splinter the guidance across to the state leve. A predominance of federalism — NOT confederalism — is what makes our nation strong.
Take that gay marriage issue. Not for an amendment. Not on that. Not on abortion. However, if the Supremes came out against it but stated that gays had the same contractual rights inherent in marriage without actually having a constitutional right to marriage itself, I’d be ok with that. Many gays wouldn’t, but I would. To me, it’s always been about the legal side of marriage. Not the religous. I don’t care if you call it marriage or partnership or cohesion or whatever … I want the same rights. That is all.
Having an amendment against anything would be taking the mood of the country at the time and making it an affective law that would be hard to repeal … if ever. At least with a judicial decision, over time .. opinions change & precedents can be reset.
I find your response problematic Myke, for one, in your arguments against a constitutional ammendment, you make basically the same argument I make against using the Supreme Court to settle moral issues. However, atleast with a constitutional ammendment, it reflects the peoples will, on the other hand, with a supreme court ruling, it represents at most nine justices will. Surely a plurality of people is a superior method than a non-plurality, yet you support the Supreme Court and argue against a constitutional ammendment. Forgive me for saying this, but that looks like bias to me, don’t you think?
Theres a better way to think about this Myke, put yourself in my shoes. In other words, assume for the moment that there were nine justice Scalias on the court, and they ruled in favor of a COMPLETE ban on gay marriage. Not just the ‘religious’ part, but EVERYTHING. No hospital visitations, no inheritence, no civil unions, NOTHING. This ruling was to be carried out over every state, regardless of the states moral views on the issue.
How would that make you feel? This is why I say Democrats are in favor of allowing the Supreme Court to decide moral issues so long as they keep deciding in favor of liberal moral issues.
On the other hand, assume that it was the people that decided they didnt want gay marriage, and every state voted against it. What rulings do you think will carry more weight?
I think the democratic rulings carry more weight.
In every moral issue, you will have people disagreeing on what side is right, what side is ‘better for society’, and which side is truly moral. But only when those moral issues are decided by the people, does everybody get their fair say.
See, HP, I find your rationale as problematic as you find mine. The Supreme Court was set up in the brilliant manner that it was for one reason .. it is a strong check & balance. Also, the beauty of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments is it removes (for the most part) politics from the judiciary. Just look at the members who sit there. Most were appointed by Republicans (including the most liberal member) and they certainly didn’t adhere to the philosophies of the Presidents who appointed them. I don’t fear that the court would ever have 9 Scalias no more than there’s any iota of worry for you that there ever will be 9 Souters. This simply makes your example a bit weak as it’s such a remote possibility to ever be the case.
Now, as for a constitutional amendment .. it would take alot to ever get me to support an amendment to that document for any reason. Right now, there is simply not an issue that I think would warrant touching the constitution. It was written in a succinct manner so that it could ebe and flow with time as the country matured. I believe that. I think the entire idea of ‘strict construction’ in reference to how it is interpreted is faulty on it’s base. If the founders had wanted it to be taken only literally and nothing more in every single instance, it would have likely been hundreds of pages longer and there would be no need for a Supreme Court to provide any judicial review at all as it would have all been spelled out. It wasn’t. While specific in some things, it casts a broad (some would say vague) brush stroke in others (like the 2nd amendment .. but that’s another thread).
I would rather have the courts there for both sides, liberal and conservative. The entire federal court system more accurately reflects the nation’s conscious as a whole than perhaps any thing else. There are hundreds of judges appointed by Presidents of both parties dating back quite a few years. There’s certainly more of an equitable balance throughout the courts than there is in the Congress at the moment.
Think of it this way .. at least with the court deciding such issues, there is always the opportunity for either losing side to win again one day as the mood of the nation and the outlook of the court changes. Amendments to the Constitution have a finality that is awfully hard to overcome on any issue. Also in regards to to ‘states rights’ .. I can not stress enough how much I am against states individually deciding issues such as marriage rights and abortion. HP, it simply would fracture our nation across regional, ethnic, religious, and other boundaries in a way that might just tear us apart. That is why the founders made it clear that federal law trumps state law on major issues that affect people in each and every state. This keeps us much more cohesive as a nation. I think there is no doubt of that fact. It can not be argued. We aren’t a confederacy! If we were, there’d essentially be 50 separate little nations instead of one fairly cohesive one. Personally, I think that’s a horrible thought. We’ve managed to stay tight no matter our differences due to our strong federal system … throwing to much individual power to every individual state jeopardizes our cohesion and would be a step backward. That I firmly believe.
Hey Myke,
Also, the beauty of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments is it removes (for the most part) politics from the judiciary. Just look at the members who sit there. Most were appointed by Republicans (including the most liberal member) and they certainly didn’t adhere to the philosophies of the Presidents who appointed them.
The reason is because the Supreme Court has become more and more politicized as the years go by, which is evident by the fact that both of the Supreme Court justices Bill Clinton picked have stayed liberal, in fact, they are some of the most liberal hardliners on the court. The Judges roll has shifted from just deciding if something contradicts the wording of the constitution, towards deciding if something contradicts the spirit of the constitution. And in a morally changing environment, that ‘spirit’ definition tends to reflect the most politically correct moral views of our time. Which is why liberals love the ‘spirit’ constitutional view.
As far as your disagreement with a constitutional ammendment, again you are being arbitrary Myke. A Supreme Court ruling, especially like the one in Roe vs. Wade, is essentially the same thing as a constitutional ammendment. In other words, a Supreme Court that defines the limits and meaning of the constitution has the same affect as a constitutional ammendment. Future court rulings will be decided with that previous Supreme Court ruling in mind, just as if it was a constitutional ammendment or not. But the difference being that a constitutional ammendment has the authority of a super majority behind it, whereas a Supreme Court ruling has the authority of, at most, nine justices behind it.
Think of it this way .. at least with the court deciding such issues, there is always the opportunity for either losing side to win again one day as the mood of the nation and the outlook of the court changes. Amendments to the Constitution have a finality that is awfully hard to overcome on any issue.
This is not true at all Myke, both have about the same difficultly as the previous ones. But again, if your metric is the ability to rapidly change with moral evolutions, than again, my method is supreme. For if morals are decided directly by the people and not by judges, than you will have laws that directly change with moral tastes. Both, a constitutional ammendment and a Supreme Court ammendment being much slower.
In conclusion, I don’t know what liberals have to fear from conservative judges. The most a conservative judge will do is vote no on a liberal moral issue. But that no vote would not force states to be in favor of it. All that ‘no’ vote will do is kick that moral issue back to the states to decide, and bring it back to the voters, where moral issues belong. On the other hand, liberal judges will vote in favor of such moral issues, and thereby make those moral issues federal law, taking away a states right, and more importantly, the citizens right to vote their own moral conscious.
As far as the countries unity on moral issues goes, that is a legitimate point. However, that works more against you than in favor, since it is clear that the majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage. Since that is the case, the arguments in favor of a constitutional ammendment are strengthened by the country unity argument.