Ginsburg: Roe decision "bit off more than it could chew"

Former ACLU attorney and current US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at Princeton over a week ago, on October 21, and I'm not surprised pro-abort bloggers have steered clear of discussing it. Read The Daily Princetonian's account to know why:

When asked about the discrepancy between her support of a woman's right to choose and her disapproval of Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to legalized abortion in 1973, Ginsburg said that she was surprised by "how far the court had gone [in this decision]."

ginsburg at princeton.jpg

"It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to say that the extreme cases are unconstitutional" without broadening the decision to the 50 states.

Ginsburg said that the abruptness of the decision, which declared many state statutes unconstitutional, created a "perfect rallying point" for people who disagreed with the notion that abortion should be a woman's choice. She added that the decision may have also stifled dialogue with state legislatures....

"I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman's choice, but the court should not have done it all," she said.

She added that in the absence of a sweeping decision like Roe, it is possible that abortion rights legislation would have evolved organically in the same way that no-fault divorce laws have.

Princeton's weekly newspaper, Town Topics, reported (click to enlarge):

ginsburg princeton.jpg

Ginsburg was saying the Roe v. Wade decision was wrong. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. The decision was too sudden, too sweeping, too jarring, creating the pro-life movement in backlash, when Ginsburg believes states left alone would have eventually created their own pro-abortion laws sans all the protests and palpable social upheaval.

The same ends would have been achieved without the war.

So here we have the preeminent pro-abortion Supreme saying Roe was wrongly decided. Ouch. What does this mean for Obama, should he be elected president? He has stated he would nominate someone like Ginsburg. What does this mean for the Democrat-controlled Senate? Would it allow the nomination of a liberal like Ginsburg who thinks the Roe decision was wrong?

No wonder the other side stands so strongly now on the principle of stare decisis, i.e., precedent, or leaving settled laws like Roe alone, even if bad, because overturning them would create too much societal chaos.

But Ginsburg was specifically saying that in this case it was the original decision that created the chaos. That's a major problem for the other side.

[HT: LifeNews.com; photo courtesy of The Daily Princetonian]


Comments:

It seems if the Supreme Court Justices are wise beyond their education, it must be difficult to face the fact that it was based on a lie about rape and that we all still know it is a human baby.

Posted by: xppc at October 30, 2008 8:13 AM



But, but, but, I thought this was a Constitutional right?!

The principle of steare decisis should stand firm? So Dred Scott(denying black Americans citizenship), Plessy v Ferguson(sanctioning segregation laws), and the SC support of putting American citizens in concentration camps on a presidential whim should all have stood firm?

Posted by: Mary at October 30, 2008 8:25 AM


Doug,

I rest my case.

Posted by: Mary at October 30, 2008 8:29 AM


If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the revelations made during the partial-birth abortion case tried in 2006 had a severe impact on her, by opening her eyes to the extent abortionists will go to leverage both the financial income and political power on a national scale. She was pretty cold in her remarks at the time - I know, because what she said convinced me to spend the rest of my life fighting this scourge.

The long term consequences can only go in one of two directions - either abortion rights continue on to infanticide (likely under Obama) or from an above-ground social perspective, abortion becomes absolutely unthinkable, and thus socially outlawed, much like slavery.

That doesn't mean abortion will cease - it will move underground, but society won't be condoning it's use as a means of acceptable birth control.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 30, 2008 8:59 AM


Chris: I agree.

The long term consequences can only go in one of two directions - either abortion rights continue on to infanticide (likely under Obama)

This is the natural progression of the abortion logic although the proaborts INSIST it is not. That's why Peter Singer is so hard to argue. Because he is being completely consistent in his thinking - it's the proabort liberal feminists that are not.

Posted by: Patricia at October 30, 2008 9:02 AM


AS THESE BLACK ROBED ANGELS OF DEATH REALIZE THEIR MORTAILITY AND THAT MOST OF THEM ARE APPROACHING ETERNITY AND A HOLY GOD WHO WILL DETERMINE THEIR DESTINY, MY PRAYER IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT CONVICT THEM BEYOND WHAT THEY CAN BEAR AND CAUSE THEM TO CHANGE THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO BEAR THE CONSEUENCES OF 50,000,000 SLAUGHTERED AND INNOCENT CHILDREN SINCE 1973.

YOU THINK THAT PREPOSTEROUS? WELL DON'T. THE GOD THAT CAN SUSPEND THE EARTH ON NOTHING, THE GOD THAT CAN CREATE A BLACK HOLE, THE GOD THAT CAN MAKE A SUN, YES THE GOD THAT CAN CREATE A HUMAN BEING, CAN CREATE A HELL IN WHICH, APART FROM REPENTANCE, THESE PEOPLE WILL SPEND FOREVER IN AND NEVER FIND EWSCAPE FROM THE DEBT OF INNOCENT BLOOD THEY BROUGHT ON THEIR OWN HEADS AND THE DESTRUCTION THEY WROUGHT ON A ONCE GREAT COUNTRY.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3722098690652929884

Posted by: HisMan at October 30, 2008 9:10 AM


That's some good insight, Chris. That is the one positive thing we can say about the Michael Tooleys, the Peter Singers, and the Mary Ann Warrens; they are quite consistent.

I often go back and forth with myself as to whether that is better or worse than the typical pro-choicer. On the one hand, someone like Singer is so brutally honest and not afraid of where the "truth" (as he understands it) leads. On the other hand, at least the typical pro-choicer has enough conscience to know when far is too far. All in all, you'd think that this logic would lead to a reductio ad absurdum proof that abortion is immoral, but the typical pro-choicers don't seem to think infanticide follows, and the Peter Singers don't seem to care. Maranatha...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 30, 2008 9:12 AM


The Earth isn't suspened on nothing, it is kept up by the gravatational pull of the sun, just like the moon doesn't wander away because it's in the Earth gravitational pull. But seeing as you don't believe in gravity, how about you take a nice walk off a cliff?

Posted by: Jess at October 30, 2008 10:00 AM


Bobby it's not abortion if the baby is outside of the woman's body.

Posted by: Jess at October 30, 2008 10:08 AM


Yes but if you can kill the baby in the womb, why not outside the womb? Bring it up with the chair of the ethics department of one of the top universities in the United States.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 30, 2008 10:21 AM


Bobby Bambino @ 9:12 AM

Agreed.

I contend it's not necessary for the philosopher himself to implement his ponderings. Nietzsche was brutally truthful in his assessments of what would happen if man rejected God, and understood where that lead, but it took Hitler to realize the out-workings of those ideas of the "superman" and the alleged superiority of those desired.

Save for those who've accepted Christ, there's no difference between 1930's and today, with respect to the lostness of man.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 30, 2008 10:40 AM


Jess at October 30, 2008 10:08 AM

Jess - Is inducing labor and specifically delivering a child for the purposes of abortion, that is the killing and discarding of the child, moral?

If you contend it's morality is relative to time, then that's hypocritical, because the morality of something doesn't change because of time.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 30, 2008 10:48 AM


Jess
Partial Birth Abortion is where the baby is almost born, except for the head. Then the baby is killed by a scissor in the head and having the brain sucked out. The baby is mere inches from being born! That's the closest abortion that's "outside the womb".

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 11:09 AM


LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 11:09 AM
----

Sadly Liz, partial birth abortion, as horrible as it is, isn't the closest that abortion gets to outside the womb - that would be induced labor abortion, which actually prematurely delivers babies for the express purposes of aborting them. That's exactly what Jill encountered that so profoundly impacted her life.

That's also the abortion technique that Barack Obama defended against in the Illinois Senate.

Yes - it's infanticide.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 30, 2008 11:57 AM


Well what concerns me most is Nobama's promise to sign FOCA. That would overturn all abortion laws as I understand it.

And there is no question Nobama would appoint far left supreme court judges and would get away with it if the worst happens and Pelosi and Reid have majorities.

One thing I have been glad about is in recent days McCain and Palin have been talking about this, making people realize it's possible to have the democrats in control of all branches of government. Many people do not want this. And its something that should have been an issue some time ago.

however the MSM has actually helped by publishing articles and talking on tv of this possibility. It scares a lot of people with good reason.

Posted by: Joanne at October 30, 2008 12:14 PM


actually, you're right Chris. My mistake - I forgot about induced labor abortions.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 12:21 PM


Ginsburg believes states left alone would have eventually created their own pro-abortion laws sans all the protests and palpable social upheaval.

Well, some states would have, as had NY and CO, already, I believe, but obviously quite a few states would not have.
.....


"I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman's choice, but the court should not have done it all," she said.

The problem is that though she's in favor of women's rights, there, she's just leaving it up to the states, and why should women in a given state have the rights, while in other states women wouldn't, or would wait a long time for them?

Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2008 12:24 PM


Mary: But, but, but, I thought this was a Constitutional right?!

It is, supported by the 9th Amendment, due process, and the principles of freedom and liberty in the Constitution.
.....


The principle of steare decisis should stand firm? So Dred Scott(denying black Americans citizenship), Plessy v Ferguson(sanctioning segregation laws), and the SC support of putting American citizens in concentration camps on a presidential whim should all have stood firm?

Well, I sure don't think so. We shouldn't leave slavery up to the states, nor should we leave women's rights up to the states as far as continuing or ending pregnancies.
.....


Doug, I rest my case.

I'm with you on the segregation laws and the concentration camps, you're just not with me on women's rights here.

Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2008 12:28 PM


FOCA. That would overturn all abortion laws as I understand it.

Joanne, why do you say that? FOCA would codify Roe more into law, and there are restrictions on abortion that have been found to be in line with Roe, i.e. they wouldn't be overturned.

Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2008 12:47 PM


FOCA would allow restrictions after viability as longs as exceptions existed for life and health of the mother. We could actually have more restrictions then we have now. Obama said he's support such a ban on late term abortions, and limit the "loophole" for "mental health" exceptions.

Posted by: Hal at October 30, 2008 12:59 PM


The Constitution was to protect us from gov't tyranny. The IRS is one indication the gov't has no intention of getting off our backs.

Mary, the IRS is not really seen as "tyranny." Most people acknowledge the need for taxes. This boils down to the gov't needing to have a really good reason, a compelling need, etc., before the freedom of the people is abridged.
.....


If it didn't come up on a Constitutional basis its likely because no one saw any Constitutional basis. Neither slavery or abortion were Constitutional rights, period. They were regulated by the legislatures and apparently no lawyers, judges, or Constitutional scholars had any issues with this for a hundred plus years.

It will take a given amount of time for some things to come up, especially with respect to the Supreme Court. Abortion was a right, and was supported by the 9th Amendment. Yes, it took a long time, but the Roe decision affirmed this. There will be things going to the Supreme Court in the coming years that go to things written in the Constitution over 200 years ago. Roe and numerous other decisions have also affirmed that the gov't should be "hands off" the people unless there is a good enough reason.
.....


The point is Doug such rights as religion and freedom of the press have a Constitutional basis and cannot be "chipped away" at.

I pretty much agree there, though it can be argued. There will still be a line drawn where a thing won't be protected, though a given person might feel it should be, under those two things you mentioned.
.....


If there was a Constitutional basis for abortion, the same would hold true. I've never heard of any "Freedom of Religion Act" or "Freedom of the Press Act".

You're acting like the 9th Amendment doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Acts like those really aren't needed, because they are specifically addressed in the Constitution. But in no way does that mean that other rights aren't upheld by the Constitution, though they aren't enumerated within.

Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2008 1:43 PM


Doug,12:24PM

How can abortion "rights" vary from state to state?
Why should criminals in one state be executed but not another? Why are criminals punished differently from state to state? Why should drinking laws vary? Why should marriage laws vary? We have state legislatures, they are the people's representatives, they make the laws.

Doug, 12:28PM

The Constitutional right to abortion is in the 9th?
Tell it to Ruth Ginsburg.

You agree with me on segregation and concentration camps?
Come on Doug, are you actually acknowledging the SC can make decisions that have no basis in the Constitution and are actually wrong? That justices with an agenda can conveniently read into the Constitution what isn't there?
There is hope.

Doug 1:43PM

The IRS is not seen as a tyranny? That's in the point of view. I didn't say it was a tyranny. You said the Constitution was to keep the gov't off our backs. The IRS is a good example of how the gov't has no intention of getting off our backs. Try not coughing up what they say you owe by April 15th and see what I mean.

Come on Doug, would the Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and the press have taken several decades to"come up". Hardly, they were clearly stated in the Constitution. Slavery and abortion (according to you) were both legal at the time the 9th was written yet for decades legislatures regulated these activities until the 13th banned slavery. These were not Constitutional guarantees, they were legal "rights" controlled by the legislatures.
This went unchallenged by lawyers, courts, and constituional scholars.

Again Doug, tell the good justice Ginsburg about the 9th. She seems to not be in total agreement with you.

Posted by: Mary at October 30, 2008 2:22 PM


Doug, you say it as just as likely that Jesus would have compassion on the woman as if compassion = abortion. Answer a question for me. Do you think that Jesus, who "never" killed anybody, and who believes that the Holy Spirit is the author of all life that is present at the point of conception would destroy a life his heavenly father created?

Truthseeker, what I am wondering is why are you so sure that Jesus would have seen the unborn as "persons." This was not in line with the tradition of the times then. Are there specific things that Jesus says to show that he does think of the unborn as people? Does Jesus ever address conception?

And there may be - I don't know. Yet even if so, then the question of Jesus's compassion for the pregnant woman would remain. So it'd be cool to go back in time and talk with him.
.....


"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

"The unborn babies obviously were not guilty of religious conversion, yet the biblical God orders them killed anyway."

TS: Doug, It is presumptuos of you to think you you can say who is guilty and who is innocent in God's eyes. Since the trangression of Adam and Eve everybody is born with original sin. In fact, this passage is a glaring prophecy of the scourge of abortion we are suffering under today where these "innocent" babies are slaughtered because to this day we rebel against our God.

Ahem - I think you and I can agree that the unborn that we are debating about are "innocent." Okay - original sin - but if we go there, then that would apply to the unborn today, too, no?

There is no one "we" as you appear to be saying. Do we all "rebel" against the God you believe in?

Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2008 2:32 PM


How can abortion "rights" vary from state to state?

Mary, without the Constitutional protection, as with the Roe decision, they could.
.....


Why should criminals in one state be executed but not another? Why are criminals punished differently from state to state? Why should drinking laws vary? Why should marriage laws vary? We have state legislatures, they are the people's representatives, they make the laws.

Choosing between life imprisonment and execution as an approved legal punishment, etc., is one thing; having a right or not is another. Drinking laws, etc., are matters of degree, i.e age 18, 19, 20, or 21. Yes, state legislatures, but the principle of us not really voting on rights, as with slavery and the states, remains.
.....

The Constitutional right to abortion is in the 9th? Tell it to Ruth Ginsburg.

What do you think she sees in the 35 years since Roe, deriving from Roe, that is so bad? She does say it should be the woman's choice.
.....


You agree with me on segregation and concentration camps? Come on Doug, are you actually acknowledging the SC can make decisions that have no basis in the Constitution and are actually wrong? That justices with an agenda can conveniently read into the Constitution what isn't there? There is hope.

Well, I was saying I agree with you that the Scott and Ferguson decisions should not have stood. I do not want things to be that way. It's not really for me to say whether the Supreme Court is "wrong" about the Constitution. We all may like or dislike a given thing to varying degrees, but it's the Court itself which has the power to interpret the Constitution. As long as there are people on different sides of an argument that is related in some way to the Constitution, then there will always be people saying "wrong," one way or another, no matter which way the Court would decide.
.....


The Constitution was to protect us from gov't tyranny. The IRS is one indication the gov't has no intention of getting off our backs.

"Mary, the IRS is not really seen as "tyranny." Most people acknowledge the need for taxes. This boils down to the gov't needing to have a really good reason, a compelling need, etc., before the freedom of the people is abridged."

The IRS is not seen as a tyranny?

Not really, no - do you see any prevalent sentiment that the IRS should be abolished among the populace?
.....


That's in the point of view. I didn't say it was a tyranny. You said the Constitution was to keep the gov't off our backs. The IRS is a good example of how the gov't has no intention of getting off our backs. Try not coughing up what they say you owe by April 15th and see what I mean.

Having the gov't off our backs is the same thing as being free from governmental tyranny. Most people realize that taxes are necessary for how they want the gov't to operate.
.....


Come on Doug, would the Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and the press have taken several decades to"come up". Hardly, they were clearly stated in the Constitution.

Your question would only make sense if they weren't specifically addressed in the Constitution.
....


Slavery and abortion (according to you) were both legal at the time the 9th was written yet for decades legislatures regulated these activities until the 13th banned slavery. These were not Constitutional guarantees, they were legal "rights" controlled by the legislatures.

Again, there is a difference between a thing being specifically guaranteed, and the idea that the gov't needs to have a really good reason, a compelling need, etc., before the freedom of the people is abridged. The Roe decision and the 13th Amendment are saying that the legislatures should not control things, there.
.....


This went unchallenged by lawyers, courts, and constituional scholars.

Mary, it's not just "according to me" that they were legal then. There are things that the Supreme Court hasn't gotten to yet, things that will be decided with no change in the relevant parts of the Constitution from over 200 years ago. It happens. The 13th Amendment didn't say that slavery had been "okay" until its passage. And Roe didn't say there had been some "change" that affected things.

Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2008 3:02 PM


Doug 3:02PM

I know abortion laws would vary state to state. I'm saying any number of laws, including criminal and capital punishment laws, vary from state to state and no one seems to see a problem with this. We don't vote on Constitutional rights and abortion is not listed as a constitutional right.

Ginsburg also says it should have been left to the legislatures to decide. Has she suggested such Constitutional rights as freedom of the press and religion should be? Apparently Justice Ginsburg does not see this as a Consitutional right.

Yes the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. The Court is also made up of very fallible, as we all are, human beings who can make wrong decisons based on a personal bias or agenda.
Unlike you I think we can say the Court was wrong. I can find absolutely no justification for American citizens to be relegated to second class citizenship or put into concentration camps on a presidential whim. I find these decisions a disgrace.

Where the IRS is concerned do I see any prevalent sentiment among the populace that the IRS be abolished? LOL!! Let's just say Doug I have found no fondness for the IRS as of yet.

My question would only make sense if they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. That's the point Doug, they were! So we never waited for them to "come up".

The 13th came after a bloody Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, which was the beginning of the end for slavery. The 13th amendment completed what the Emancipation Proclamation started. Prior to this most congressional acts supported slavery. Would the 13th amendment have passed when it did without a civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation? Beats me.
Justice Ginsburg questions Roe and the extent to which the court went. Apparently she does not share your view that legislatures should have had no say in this issue.

Doug, violation of Constitutional rights, those specifically written, will not take decades to "come up". As I said, we haven't suddenly found freedom of religion and freedom of the press. No one challenged the legislatures regulating slavery and abortion because they were not Constitutional rights!

Posted by: Mary at October 30, 2008 3:39 PM


Jess:

You think I don't believe in gravity? How did you ever come to that conclusion?

The centrifugal force of the earth, as a result of it orbit around the sun, which is at just the right angular velocity to counteract or balance the force of gravity that would otherwise cause it to fall into the sun.

I don't think that involves a rope, a string, a cable, or a chain. In other words it is suspended on nothing accept an invisible force. Perhaps you have seen gravity Jess or just it's affects?

And this too, the moon is in a geosyncrhonous orbit around the earth.

This too Jess, what do you think would happen to the earth if the orbit was geosynchronous? Right, it would burn up.

Oh, and this too Jess, what is holding the sun in place?

Sorry Jess, not only has my generation failed to teach you about God it has also failed to teach you to think.

Posted by: HisMan at October 30, 2008 10:41 PM


what is holding the sun in place?

The great big Romulan ship on the other side, with a tractor beam, of course.

Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2008 12:43 AM


I know abortion laws would vary state to state. I'm saying any number of laws, including criminal and capital punishment laws, vary from state to state and no one seems to see a problem with this. We don't vote on Constitutional rights and abortion is not listed as a constitutional right.

Mary, doesn't have to be "listed" - the 9th Amendment. And it is a constitutional right, per the Supreme Court. Indeed, that "we don't vote on Constitutional rights" is why the Court doesn't leave it to the states. There have been many other Court rulings having to do with due process, privacy, and the principles of freedom and liberty in the Constitution, though the specific situations or actions in question are not listed in the Constitution.
.....


Ginsburg also says it should have been left to the legislatures to decide. Has she suggested such Constitutional rights as freedom of the press and religion should be? Apparently Justice Ginsburg does not see this as a Consitutional right.

I'd like to question her on that.

"Of course it has to be the woman's choice, but the Court should not have done it all," she said. "It is dangerous to go to the end of the road when all you see in front of you are a few yards."

What, really, does she see that is "bad" about the way things worked out? It's been 35 years, and what "danger" have we run into? How was it really "dangerous" at the time?

And what's wrong with the Court "doing it all" in this case? If "it has to be the woman's choice," what better way to secure that?

The Roe decision "bit off more than it could chew"? What is the "more" that she's postulating?

I guess it's be good to read everything she said, in context.

Of course she hasn't argued against press freedom and religious freedom, and neither is she arguing against abortion rights. Were there an amendment or the passage of FOCA, it would change things as well.
.....


Yes the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. The Court is also made up of very fallible, as we all are, human beings who can make wrong decisons based on a personal bias or agenda.
Unlike you I think we can say the Court was wrong. I can find absolutely no justification for American citizens to be relegated to second class citizenship or put into concentration camps on a presidential whim. I find these decisions a disgrace.

Your feeling is that prior to the 13th amendment, that slavery should not have been allowed. I agree, and also feel that the rights of women should not have been abridged prior to the Roe decision. If in the future we get FOCA or an amendment for women's rights in the matter, my opinion about the current times, and the times prior to Roe, would not change, just as your feelings are not altered by the timing of the 13th Amendment in the matter of slavery.
.....


Where the IRS is concerned do I see any prevalent sentiment among the populace that the IRS be abolished? LOL!! Let's just say Doug I have found no fondness for the IRS as of yet.

As I said - there is not significant sentiment in the US to actually do away with the IRS nor taxes. Most of us bitch about that kind of stuff all the time, but do we really want to give up the system of gov't that we have, which includes taxes? No.
.....


Come on Doug, would the Constitutional rights of freedom of religion and the press have taken several decades to"come up". Hardly, they were clearly stated in the Constitution.

"Your question would only make sense if they weren't specifically addressed in the Constitution."

My question would only make sense if they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. That's the point Doug, they were! So we never waited for them to "come up".

No, you posed a hypothetical question - would they have taken several decades to come up? The only way it can even be speculated upon is to assume that the Constitution would not clearly state it. Same for abortion rights - if in 1789 it'd been set to paper - "no governmental interference in the matter of abortion to quickening" - anything like that, then it would not have "come up" as it did, first the state laws gradually appearing, then beginning to disappear, then the Roe decision.
.....


The 13th came after a bloody Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, which was the beginning of the end for slavery. The 13th amendment completed what the Emancipation Proclamation started. Prior to this most congressional acts supported slavery. Would the 13th amendment have passed when it did without a civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation? Beats me.

Good question. I'd say if it passed, it'd have been later on than 1865.
.....

Justice Ginsburg questions Roe and the extent to which the court went. Apparently she does not share your view that legislatures should have had no say in this issue.

That's why I'd like to read everything she said, in context. I agree that "the extent" to which the Court went is a concern of hers, but again - what developed from that that she regrets? Just what did we "bite off" that she doesn't think is good?

I don't think she is really questioning Roe. And she's not saying the legislatures should have a say. "Of course it has to be the woman's choice" pretty well rules that out.
.....


Doug, violation of Constitutional rights, those specifically written, will not take decades to "come up". As I said, we haven't suddenly found freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

A moot point - of course things which are specific in the Constitution won't "come up" as the questions we are talking about do (abortion, slavery prior to the 13th Amendment, etc). However, there are things to be decided yet, on the basis of what was written over 200 years ago, so state law being overturned by Roe is not that big a deal on the basis of time.
.....


No one challenged the legislatures regulating slavery and abortion because they were not Constitutional rights!

Abortion to quickening was, and that's per the 9th Amendment, English common law and the "received" common law in the US, and the Roe decision noted that, and affirmed it.

What if there had been a "Roe" type case in the 1830's, just as state law banning abortion was beginning to appear? By your reasoning this would change things, but the Constitutional principles would not change, nor would anything else that we've been talking about, necessarily.

Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2008 1:34 AM


the moon is in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth.

HisMan, you're talking about the moon's period of rotation around its own axis, rather than its period of rotation around the earth, right? The moon's period of axial rotation has slowed over time, due to tidal forces from the earth, to the point that now it equals its earth orbit time, so we always see the same side of the moon, and it also helped Pink Floyd sell a lot of albums.

As far as gravity and orbiting, the moon's orbital period would have to change, or the rate of the earth's axial rotation, so the moon could stay in the same spot over the earth's surface or "in the sky" - truly geosynchronous.

Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2008 1:59 AM


Abortion is homocide. Say it with me now. Abortion is pro-choice to kill the baby. Make sure you finish what you are saying. It's not just pro-choice, it's pro-choice to kill the baby. I can't fathom why more women since Roe have not come out against their "right" to kill babies in the womb. Is it really that precious a right to that many? Does anybody know the percentage of women who are prolife? I would guess it is a higher percentage then the percentage of men who are pro-life. Does anybody know those percentages?

Posted by: truthseeker at October 31, 2008 2:54 AM


Hisman people believe in more then one God. There are many different religions out there, you can't prove yours is right so why should we base the law on it? Because of the Bible? What about the Koran? What about all the holy books of different religions? Are you aware that there are more people in this world then just you and your friends?

Posted by: Jess at October 31, 2008 7:11 AM


Moderator please stop letting the pro-aborts sabatoge the purpose of this PRO-LIFE blog, the attempts to take over are quite obvious. The are desperate to create havoc as they are desperate to try to elect the most pro-abortion president ever. Prolifers do spiritual warfare against the demonic force of death and destruction that wants to destroy LIFE. Christian prolifers please pray Psalms 35 and The Lord's Prayer. A great video message about what is at stake during this election is on www.valuesvoter.com.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 31, 2008 1:45 PM


Doug,

Hey, tell it to Justice Ginsburg, the very liberal former ACLU lawyer. LOL. Imagine her and I actually agreeing! The court doesn't leave it to the states? It had for over a hundred years.

Doug, I can't read the good justice's mind, only her words. NO where do I read her saying that abortion should never have been left to the state legislatures or that its a Constitutional right under the 9th. She doesn't argue that freedom of religion and the press should be left to the states because these ARE rights listed in the Constitution.

Whatever I think of slavery is irrelevant. The fact is it was never a right in the Constitution. State legislatures regulated it like they did abortion. Justice Ginsburg seems to think states left alone would likely have passed pro-abortion legislation. Sure sounds to me like she thinks this belonged with the legislatures and always did.

I'm glad we agree that rights specific to the Constitution won't "come up". Again, there is hope.

What if there had been a "Roe" case in the 1830's. You mean what if a couple of lawyers had found a mentally unstable woman claiming she was raped to bring a case before the Supreme Court just as state law banning abortion began to appear? Why would this be necessary if abortion was already a Constitutional right? State legislatures would no more be able to outlaw abortion that they could outlaw religion.

Posted by: Mary at October 31, 2008 4:08 PM


Doug, continuing my 4:08PM post,

...or else they could have conned an uneducated, abused woman seperated from her husband and pregnant with her 4th child into thinking she would be getting her children back from indentured servitude, when in fact the lawyers planned to use her circumstances to prevent the passage of abortion laws. It would be of no relevance that this woman opposed abortion and would never have consented to her circumstances being used to prevent the passage of such laws.

Posted by: Mary at October 31, 2008 9:21 PM


Hey, tell it to Justice Ginsburg, the very liberal former ACLU lawyer. LOL. Imagine her and I actually agreeing! The court doesn't leave it to the states? It had for over a hundred years.

Mary - nope, since it hadn't come up. If it had come before the Court, and been left to the states, then I'd agree with you. Moreover, the Roe decision didn't note any "change" that had occurred, i.e. the states should not have regulated it, prior to viability, all along.
.....


Doug, I can't read the good justice's mind, only her words. NO where do I read her saying that abortion should never have been left to the state legislatures or that its a Constitutional right under the 9th. She doesn't argue that freedom of religion and the press should be left to the states because these ARE rights listed in the Constitution.

I guess the question should be put to her - should Roe be overturned? I think she would say "no." Perhaps she was surprised by how for the court went, but that is not saying she's against the decison, versus the alternative.

How do we reconcile her statement? "I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman’s choice, but the court should not have done it all." That really does not make sense, given the fact that not all the states would have legalized abortion. She may be questioning the Court procedure and the scope of the ruling, but in no way is she noting anything "bad" that came of it. Bottom line, if one is saying "that it has to be a woman's choice," then could one logically be against the Roe decision?
.....


Whatever I think of slavery is irrelevant. The fact is it was never a right in the Constitution. State legislatures regulated it like they did abortion. Justice Ginsburg seems to think states left alone would likely have passed pro-abortion legislation. Sure sounds to me like she thinks this belonged with the legislatures and always did.

You're still acting like a thing would have to be "in" the Constitution to be supported by the Constitution, and that's where you're wrong. The 9th Amendment says otherwise. It says "others" meaning "other rights" held by the people, and when the Constitution was written having slaves was indeed a right. There never was an Amendment saying that people could have slaves, (which would have removed it from the hands of state legislatures), but there were some decisions that supported slavery, prior to the 13th Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation, etc.

The 13th Amendment, for example, did not say that something had "changed" that meant that now slavery should be prohibited. It was disagreeing with some previous Court rulings, and essentially saying that slavery should not have been legal prior to that time, as well as after it. Anyway, the 13th Amendment took the issue out of the hands of state legislatures, as did the Roe decision for abortion rights. Neither was saying "previously, it was right that the state legislatures had control."
.....


What if there had been a "Roe" case in the 1830's. You mean what if a couple of lawyers had found a mentally unstable woman claiming she was raped to bring a case before the Supreme Court just as state law banning abortion began to appear? Why would this be necessary if abortion was already a Constitutional right? State legislatures would no more be able to outlaw abortion that they could outlaw religion.

Granted that McCorvey is a bit of a nutball, but she wanted legal access to abortion, and the Roe decision helped a lot in that respect. The Roe decision said that states should not outlaw abortion prior to viability, and nothing had "changed," again - it should have been that way all along, same as nothing had changed for the 13th Amendment to take effect.

If there had been a "Roe" in the 1830's, that would have clarified the Court's stand on abortion rights earlier, rather than later.
.....


...or else they could have conned an uneducated, abused woman seperated from her husband and pregnant with her 4th child into thinking she would be getting her children back from indentured servitude, when in fact the lawyers planned to use her circumstances to prevent the passage of abortion laws. It would be of no relevance that this woman opposed abortion and would never have consented to her circumstances being used to prevent the passage of such laws.

Why does one person's personal preference matter, as with one person supporting slavery (or indentured servitude)? We are talking about abortion rights for all women.

Posted by: Doug at November 2, 2008 2:52 PM


Doug,

You can argue all you want but what Justice Ginsburg said speaks for itself. Obviously she does not share your opinion, as I do not, that abortion ever was a Constitutional right. She also agrees that it should have been left to the legislatures, as it had for well over a hundred years. I find it odd that no constitutional scholars in that 100+ year period could ever pick up on what a couple of obscure lawyers in Texas with a mentally ill and lying client could in the early 1970s. Do you think there would have been no outcry against laws denying religious freedom or freedom of the press?
Justice Ginsburg also says nothing about the 9th so she apparently does not share your view that abortion was sanctioned by the 9th, or else she wouldn't agree it should have been left to the legislatures.
So you have no problem with a woman in desperate circumstances being conned like Sandra Cano was? So be it Doug.

Posted by: Mary at November 2, 2008 6:01 PM


You can argue all you want but what Justice Ginsburg said speaks for itself.

Mary, then you're putting words in her mouth. I'd say it's obvious she's not really against the Roe decision.
.....


Obviously she does not share your opinion, as I do not, that abortion ever was a Constitutional right.

She said nothing to that effect. If she really thinks that it should be a woman's choice, then she's not going to object to an Amendment, say, to that effect, let alone the Roe decision. Again, while she may have felt that Roe could have been handled differently, in no way does she identify anything bad that came about because of it, in her opinion.

I'd say that she would certainly agree that the principles of freedom, liberty, due process, etc., found in the Constitution apply in the matter, and there is no doubt about what the 9th Amendment says. It's silly to act like something has to be enumerated - it says that that is not the case, and most of our freedoms, while supported by the Constitution, are not specifically mentioned in it.
.....


She also agrees that it should have been left to the legislatures,

No, she really doesn't.
.....


as it had for well over a hundred years. I find it odd that no constitutional scholars in that 100+ year period could ever pick up on what a couple of obscure lawyers in Texas with a mentally ill and lying client could in the early 1970s. Do you think there would have been no outcry against laws denying religious freedom or freedom of the press?

Of course there would have been, due to them being explicitly in the Constitution - and that's the point about if a "Roe" had come in the 1830's - it would have settled things according to the Court as it did in 1973. An Amendment would further settle things, and FOCA would go a good bit in that direction.
.....


Justice Ginsburg also says nothing about the 9th so she apparently does not share your view that abortion was sanctioned by the 9th, or else she wouldn't agree it should have been left to the legislatures.

She didn't say "should have been left to the legislatures." If asked about the 9th Amendment, I think she'd shoot you down.
.....


So you have no problem with a woman in desperate circumstances being conned like Sandra Cano was? So be it Doug.

Didn' t say that, and I'm not famililar with that case - have to look it up every time.

Posted by: Doug at November 3, 2008 12:10 PM


Doug,

From the above article, she was asked to explain the discrepancy between her support of abortion and disapproval of Roe. I can only conclude from that she disapproves of Roe. She said she was surprised by how far the Court went in the decision, she did not express her approval of the decision. She says if left to the legislatures abortion likely would have been legalized anyway. She didn't say it never should have been left to the legislatures because its a constitutional right under the 9th Amendment!
If asked about the 9th? Doug that's laughable. I would have to remind her, a Supreme Court Justice, of the 9th? Doesn't she already know this makes abortion a "Constitutional" right? Or perhaps she doesn't agree that it is and the legislatures should have been left to handle it.

Posted by: Mary at November 3, 2008 4:09 PM


Mary, there is the question of whether abortion woud have been legalized by state legislatures in the absence of Roe.

I've noted previously that of course some states would not have legalized it, and thus what she said about it being the woman's choice pretty much says how she'd feel about that.

As far as a "Constitutional right" you still appear to be pretending there is no difference between being a right enumerated in the Constitution and one supported by it though not enumerated (as most are). I assure you - Giinsburg knows the deal there.

Posted by: Doug at November 4, 2008 11:44 PM


Doug,

Tell it to Justice Ginsburg. She's obviously blissfully ignorant of, or does not agree with you, that the 9th guarantees a Constitutional right to abortion otherwise she wouldn't suggest that the legislatures would likely have legalized abortion on their own.
She wouldn't agree this was even up to the legislatures to begin with and would wholeheartedly endorse Roe, something she does not appear to have done.

Posted by: Mary at November 5, 2008 10:58 AM


She's obviously blissfully ignorant of, or does not agree with you, that the 9th guarantees a Constitutional right to abortion otherwise she wouldn't suggest that the legislatures would likely have legalized abortion on their own.

That doesn't make sense, Mary. She can speculate about what might have happened in the absence of Roe, sure, but that is not the same thing as denying what the 9th Amendment says, nor the principles therein.

She personally feels that "it has to be a woman’s choice" and I'd say it's insane to presume she'd be against the Constitutional support of women's rights, there. In no way does she say that "Roe was wrong." She was surprised at how far the Court went in the ruling, but that's not saying "it should not have happened."

I don't think anybody would deny that some states would not have legalized abortion on their own, so the best way to decide it would be to ask her if what has happened in the wake of Roe, since 1973, is any worse than what would have been the case without Roe - some states not giving women the choice that she says "has" to be there.

Okay, we can't ask her (as far as I know) but what makes more sense - that she'd follow her own "it has to be a woman's choice" principle, or that she really wishes it was up to the states, since there's no good argument that all the states would have given her what she wants, there?
.....


She wouldn't agree this was even up to the legislatures to begin with and would wholeheartedly endorse Roe, something she does not appear to have done.

It's a matter of record that states made their own laws on it for a time, but that is not saying it was constitutional. Roe set the record straight on that.

The only thing you have in what she said is "but the court should not have done it all."

Okay, that's a real objection. Yet it does not make sense in light of the other things she said.

My question to her at that point would be, "Okay, the Court did go that far, though, and isn't it better that we had Roe versus having some of the states not give women the legal choice that you say is essential?"

The only logical thing she could say there is "yes."

Posted by: Doug at November 5, 2008 7:49 PM


Doug,

Please, take it up with Justice Ginsburg. She obviously needs you to set her straight.

Posted by: Mary at November 6, 2008 9:56 AM


Mary, no - she needs further questions put to her, to get beyond the presumptions and excessive projections from what she actually did say.

"Should not have done it all."

What, really would be her reason now for saying that?

As things have worked out, what, really, was so bad about having the Roe decision as it was?

I realize that she's the one to answer.

Posted by: Doug at November 6, 2008 11:28 AM