I want you to think about the 1973 decision of Roe v Wade and how the nation decided to settle the issue of abortion.
The Independent Thinkers
A page for thinking people who tirelessly challenge their own assumptions and let neither conventionality nor agenda nor political party obstruct the relentless pursuit of truth
- Home
- Books of Note
- Election 2008
- Films of Note
- Groundbreakers
- In the News
- Music
- Video Presentations and Clips
Google US. News- Questions linger over checkpoint breakdowns at White House dinner - Washington Post
- 20000 gather for Eid al-Adha prayer in Dallas - Dallas Morning News
- Today at the White House: Leftovers and a Christmas tree - USA Today
- Bloomberg Spent $102 Million to Win 3rd Term - New York Times
- GOP Purity Test Gets Mixed Grades, Even From Conservatives - FOXNews
March 8, 2007 at 4:27 pm |
The 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, was decided on social grounds, not constitutional grounds, and is subject to being overturned, or at the very least modified, by the Court today. In its opinion, Justice Blackmun states that a right to an abortion is not explicitly granted in the Constitution. So why find the Texas statute unconstitutional? If the Court is going to create an implicit right to an abortion under the umbrella of personal liberty and a fundamental right to privacy then what is to stop it from making further rulings that are not constituitonally based, but socially based? Are we to believe that the Constitution is a document of rights that is subject to modification over the course of time based upon what is currently socially acceptable? Does this mean that our fundamental rights are subject to change by the Court? Is this really what the framers of the Constitution intended for the future of the country? I think not.
April 2, 2007 at 7:56 pm |
In response to brainygirl18
This comment is more about the constitution and social influence on decisions then Roe vs. Wade
I agree that Roe vs. Wade was very much influenced by the social climate of the time with the woman’s rights movement pushing for equality in the workforce and in making their own decisions about their bodies and health (i.e. the right to have their medical conditions kept private and not shared with husbands and fathers without their permission). The late 60’s and early 70’s were a time of force and influence by many social movements of the era. What I do not agree with is your view of what the framers of the constitution would think about that fact.
You point out that Blackmun states that a right to an abortion is not explicitly granted in the constitution. This is true it is not written in black and white, but is it not the job of the Supreme Court to interrupt the constitution and laws not the just state what it already says. If everything was stated in clear definitions in the constitution and laws in black and white we would not need the Supreme Court.
I do believe “that the constitution is a document of rights that is subject to modification over the course of time based upon what is currently socially expectable” this is why the framers of the constitution created the ability to add amendments and created a branch of the government who’s job it is to interpret it. The Amendments to the constitution all reflect what was or was not socially expectable at that time and have changed the countries fundamental beliefs. For example the 13th Amendment that freed people from slavery and gave the government the right in enforce this right was spurred by social influence and changed people fundamental right to enslave and own people. It also created a new social climate. another socially influenced amendment was the 15th amendment expanding the right to vote regardless of race or color or the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. The 18th amendment on Prohibition directly influence every person in the United States fundamental right to purchase and consume alcohol it was a social movements that created and demolished this amendment.
Now to be clear; I do not believe that the Founding Fathers would ever have thought that the rights of woman to be able to terminate a pregnancy would be a discussion under the roof of the Supreme Court or even spoken about in a public forum because of the social climate and culture that they lived in. But they had the foresight to know that they did not know all of what the future would bring and created a document and a government that could deal with issues of liberty and rights as they came up. So yes I do believe that framer intended this type of discussio, inturpurtation and the ability for a decision of this type to be made.
I am comforted by the fact that our constitution is a malleable document. That we are not a stagnant nation trapped in the beliefs of the past. It is a great thing that laws and decision can be influences by people and social views. Though it can be scary when decisions are not what you personally agree with. The ability to change without revolution I believe it is what makes us so different from other countries and cultures. And I believe that is what the Founding Father gave us and what they intended.
April 3, 2007 at 3:47 am |
I think in line with Catt, although I do not think I would be able to express it more elaborately. Culture is what defines politics and current issues become the concern of
nation as that culture changes. What was considered justified a decade ago might be an irrational threat to ‘liberty’ today.
Although the Constitution is supreme in the American system of Government, it is not a thick stone wall that cannot be passed. Its is open to amendments according to the changing needs of the society. Moreover, the ambiguous language of Constitution makes its all the more possible to be interpreted the way culture deems it appropiate. And why not? The Constitution was written down in a time period most of us today would consider barbaric. A lot has happened since then, generations have passed, nations risen and fallen down, issues raised today were unheard of in those days. How can the same Constitution provide for its people the same way it was doing 200 years ago.
Lets consider the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in its famous 1986 case: Bowers v. Hardwick. That decision affirmed that the State of Georgia had the authority to pass laws which criminalized private, consensual same-sex behavior which the legislators felt was improper or immoral. Seventeen years later, in 2003, the Court issued its Lawrence v. Texas ruling which repudiated and apologized for its former decision. The majority of justices changed their mind and ruled that states no longer had the authority to criminalize private consensual activities, simply on the grounds that most people considered the behavior to be immoral. They based this decision on the 14th amendment’s right of personal privacy and liberty — the same basis on which Roe v. Wade was decided.
Roe vs Wade is subject to reverse as much as any other Supreme Court decision is. and this is not necessarily a bad thing.
April 3, 2007 at 1:06 pm |
I agree that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document in the words of one Supreme Court Justice, but I also think that that proposition can be taken too far. Charlotte is indeed correct when she says that the amendment process is proof of the malleability of the Constitution.
Isn’t it through the passage of a constitutional amendment then that the abortion issue ought to be resolved? This does two things: it democratizes the issue of abortion (as it is in many European nations that do not have nearly the vitriole about it that exists in the United States) and it also conjoins the legislative and judicial branches in an effort to resolve the issue. The fact that seven judges (all men) decided the issue in 1973 does not sit well with a lot of Americans, both men and women.