Pro-life video of the day: Supreme Court’s abortion decision was accident of history
by Hans Johnson
People who believe in the right to life may not be welcomed by New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, but their numbers are growing, they are getting younger and more determined, and they have more reason than ever to believe in the success of their cause.
Perhaps the best summary of what was at stake at the March For Life was made by Fox News’ senior political analyst Brit Hume. See it here and please read the transcript. It’s the kind of crisp editorial writing for which David Brinkley was famous.
In his new book, Clarke D. Forsythe says that the Roe v. Wade decision was not inevitable, but was the result of a series of happenstances. He also believes its expansive scope makes its overturn likely. The author was interviewed for CBN News:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/QTaU-0DjX1Y[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Susie Allen]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The book sounds interesting. I have been impressed by this web posting on the topic of influences upon Blackmun’s Roe opinion…
http://www.meehanreports.com/blackmun.html
In our lifetime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sngEOlB_XsU
Praxedes,
Yes!
We need to prepare. We need to be budgeting and donating to Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
If Roe is overturned by the Court or the Congress, or if Planned Parenthood gets defunded and shuts down (they won’t operate as a charity), then we need to be ready. Congress will not fund the need that abortion has hidden and destroyed, and the hook-up culture will not disappear overnight.
The pro-life community will need to lead. We will have to show what sacrificial love really means. And it will be a joy!
I agree Del. I am hoping to get some students involved in volunteering/donating to a Crisis Pregnancy Center this year.
I believe most young people naturally love babies!
Hans: It’s the kind of crisp editorial writing for which David Brinkley was famous.
BRIT HUME: This is the 41st anniversary of the day the Supreme Court found that a generalized right to privacy it had basically invented, meant that a woman has a constitutional right to snuff out an unborn life, a human being with a beating heart.
Hans, that first part of the sentence is pretty awkward.
Here’s what I found online:
“The right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The idea of a right to privacy was first addressed within a legal context in the United States. Louis Brandeis (later a Supreme Court justice) and another young lawyer, Samuel D. Warren, published an article called “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 arguing that the U.S. Constitution and common law allowed for the deduction of a general “right to privacy”.[7]
Their project was never entirely successful, and the renowned tort expert Dean Prosser argued that “privacy” was composed of four separate torts, the only unifying element of which was a (vague) “right to be left alone”.[8] The four torts were:
Appropriating the plaintiff’s identity for the defendant’s benefit
Placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye
Publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff
Unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff
I would argue that the first part of that sentence is not ackward at all given that context..
Here’s what I found online:
“The right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The idea of a right to privacy was first addressed within a legal context in the United States. Louis Brandeis (later a Supreme Court justice) and another young lawyer, Samuel D. Warren, published an article called “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 arguing that the U.S. Constitution and common law allowed for the deduction of a general “right to privacy”.[7]
Their project was never entirely successful, and the renowned tort expert Dean Prosser argued that “privacy” was composed of four separate torts, the only unifying element of which was a (vague) “right to be left alone.”
I would propose that the first part of that sentence is not awkward at all given that context..
Thomas, I mean it sounds awkward. Should be “This is the 41st anniversary of the day the Supreme Court found that a generalized right to privacy, that it had basically invented…”
Or, “This is the 41st anniversary of the day the Supreme Court found that a generalized right to privacy – that the Court had basically invented – “
On privacy itself – the Constitution is not about enumerating all our rights. It’s really about limiting the powers of government, i.e. it’s understood that we have freedom; the question then being if there is a compelling enough reason for the gov’t to impinge on our freedom.
I just caught that sentence structure Doug. Yes it is awkward (this coming from someone who learned English at age 14, ha). But you have to admit that the conveyed meaning is solid, yes..
Learning English at age 14 – Holy Crow – I can just imagine. I took 5 years of Spanish, starting when I was 13, and at least Spanish is fairly ‘regular.’
Thomas, it’s certainly a question about the “right to privacy,” here. My point about the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is that in no way does a right have to be mentioned, for us to have it. Back in the late 1700s, there were a lot of people who were very resistant to a centralized federal gov’t in the first place. Many of them were not in favor of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was designed to make them feel better.
It ends up that as far as things being stated – it applies to powers of the federal gov’t. Things that are not stated, there, go to the states or the people. The Tenth Amendment says it: ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Doug,
If you look at “that it had basically invented” as a parenthetical clause it flows just fine for a spoken editorial. It reads clumsy without the parentheses. It’s not a straight reproduction of what he wrote, so perhaps he included them.
Sure, there’s a general assumption of the right to privacy. But it’s not exactly explicit. That’s why we needed an amendment about illegal search and seizure (the 4th?). But it can’t overrule the right to life, or else one could abuse or kill a family member and claim it was just in the privacy of your family.
Appropriating the plaintiff’s identity for the defendant’s benefit Placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye Publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff Unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff.
Doug: I have repeated above for your benefit the four rights as they relate to privacy in general terms, the only unifying element being “the right to be left alone” and that is still debatable and vague in 2014. The Courts to this day are divided regarding the specific applications and the context precisely because of lack of explicit statements anywhere. The right to privacy was applied to broadly and arbitrarily in Roe vs Wade. I would also argue that it was an abuse of discretion. This is the reason Pro-life is making strides.
Hans: If you look at “that it had basically invented” as a parenthetical clause it flows just fine for a spoken editorial. It reads clumsy without the parentheses. It’s not a straight reproduction of what he wrote, so perhaps he included them.
I think the speaker would have to at least have a pause before and after that clause, then, Hans – just like this – or else it’s a boo-boo. Maybe he did say it in a good way.
Sure, there’s a general assumption of the right to privacy. But it’s not exactly explicit. That’s why we needed an amendment about illegal search and seizure (the 4th?). But it can’t overrule the right to life, or else one could abuse or kill a family member and claim it was just in the privacy of your family.
Yes, the deal about one person’s rights ending where another’s begin. You know, I’m not sure we actually did need the 4th Amendment. The first ten were thrown in there to make anti-Federalists feel better, and to emphasize the separation of the new gov’t from the way the English had run things.
If we had not had those first ten, then I imagine some would have been added (perhaps in different form) later on. It’s still a bit strange though – the way it was done was somewhat of a pre-emptive measure, rather than a response to how the new US gov’t was actually doing or going to do things.
Thomas R: Appropriating the plaintiff’s identity for the defendant’s benefit Placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye Publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff Unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff.
Doug, I have repeated above for your benefit the four rights as they relate to privacy in general terms, the only unifying element being “the right to be left alone” and that is still debatable and vague in 2014. The Courts to this day are divided regarding the specific applications and the context precisely because of lack of explicit statements anywhere.
Again, Thomas, the “explicit statements” don’t have to relate to people, for them to have rights. It’s more that the gov’t isn’t supposed to mess with us, unless they are explicitly granted the power.
______
The right to privacy was applied too broadly and arbitrarily in Roe vs Wade. I would also argue that it was an abuse of discretion. This is the reason Pro-life is making strides.
I disagree. However, I do grant you that it’s a question, and that it’s not impossible that Roe would be overturned or modified. If overturned, then obviously some states would basically outlaw all abortions, some would increase restrictions, some would have no change from where they are now, and some might possibly decrease restrictions. You would view this as an improvement, and I would not. I’d feel bad for the women who wanted to have abortions but could not, legally, in their state. They’d be faced with travel, at the least.
Doug,
I don’t feel bad for people who are forced to travel to baseball dugouts to chew and spit tobacco with others, when years ago there used to be spitoons everywhere.
I also won’t be feeling bad for mothers who will have to inconveniently travel in order to have their own offspring literally torn limb from limb.
I hope and pray for the day when abortion is less common than chewing tobacco.
Doug: “Again, Thomas, the “explicit statements” don’t have to relate to people, for them to have rights. It’s more that the gov’t isn’t supposed to mess with us, unless they are explicitly granted the power.”
You have a point: if its not in ink it does not exist. Everywhere you go no one wants to put anything in writing not to be held accountable at some point. This is the exact reason there is so much dispute regarding the Constitution and its applications and this is exactly the reason we have a polemic here regarding the rights of the unborn.
I never knew you could hit a bulls eye regarding the implicit rights of the unborn to be and so well articulate the reason pro-life is making strides in regard to those rights :)