43 Comments

1. ex-democrat:

roger – while i concur with your view of mccain and hrw, this line of thought needs some work: “I would be curious to see where McCain stood were he to have a thirteen-year old daughter who had been raped.”
overturning roe would not prohibit the people of the state in which the thirteen year old daughter lives from creating a law prohibiting abortion on demand but permitting exceptions in such circumstances. the very point about roe, in other words, is that it is anti-choice.

Feb 19, 2007 - 8:56 am 2. Sandy P:

Roger, using that scenario won’t work.

The American public –on the whole– won’t allow it.

Most abortions aren’t because of rape.

Feb 19, 2007 - 9:21 am 3. TheManTheMyth:

Abortion should be a state’s rights issue, pure and simple. There is nothing in the Constitution that can be argued in good faith (at least to a trained attorney) to mandate availability of abortion (and for the record I don’t have a dog in that particular fight). The problem is, once you start ignoring the plain text of the Constitution in favor of limitless federal power to achieve a result you agree with, you have started down a very slippery slope indeed.

Feb 19, 2007 - 9:41 am 4. srlucado:

“…I will admit that I am not very interested in social and economic issues in this election. I’m looking for a leader in the war and so far neither Hillary, nor McCain impress me.”

I’m with you on this one, Roger. The finer points of privacy vs. morality are completely lost in the context of Sharia law replacing (or even damaging) the Constitution.

War is serious business, and we need serious leaders. Too bad they’re in such short supply.

Feb 19, 2007 - 9:43 am 5. David Thomson:

The U.S. Supreme court should have never got involved in the abortion debate. Roe vs. Wade is a silly and illogical decision. It does not pass the laugh test. Even many pro-choice legal experts consider it a joke. Abortion is a matter best left to the voters.

Rudy Giuliani says that he believe in appointing strict constructionists. That’s all I need. His personal views on abortion are not particularly relevant. The same holds true with John McCain.

Feb 19, 2007 - 11:09 am 6. Lem:

When McCain says Roe should be overturned he strikes a friendlier note with the base than were he to just say he was pro-life.

Saying that Roe should be overturned implies that he will actively seek judges that may do just that. This may be next to impossible given the lesson of the Bork hearings i.e. anybody with any sense better keep hot button opinions to themselves and never write about it.

Even the liberal law professors interviewed for a recent documentary on the Supreme Court admitted that Roe had very little constitutional foundation, amounting to legislation from the bench.

The Supremes did leave open the possibility for some restrictions; I believe this is where our best hopes lie – for now.

Feb 19, 2007 - 11:57 am 7. jedrury:

“pandering to get nominated is one of the weaknesses of our two-party system”

Roger, you are sounding like one of the those West Coast egg heads breathing in too much of those Pacific winds.

The “pandering” is part of the marketplace of ideas; the people either accept or reject the argument as phony or real in the political arena. This candidate a fraud, that candidate a hero. We as Americans vote that way; it has been going on for two centuries.

On the hallucinating effect of Pacific air; Berkeley Professor Orville Schell on C Span Sunday asked John Micklethwait of the Economist about the challenges confronting America; “Are Americans, as a nation, capable of confronting the tough issues of Iraq in the next election?”

Capable? “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” Have we come to that age when we truly fear confronting the future? Orville Shelle has … to ask a question like that.

Feb 19, 2007 - 12:23 pm 8. Captain Hate:

“Have we come to that age when we truly fear confronting the future?”

Have you not noticed how gracelessly boomers age or postpone maturity?

Feb 19, 2007 - 12:45 pm 9. Buddy Larsen:

I’m with David–keep the demands few, but rock-solid. Strict-constructionism is a huge principle. The details will flow naturally, if only we can re-assert that one principle. “Living document” is going to give us a civil war–if it hasn’t already.

Feb 19, 2007 - 12:52 pm 10. Terrye:

I think that for many people the issue of Roe vs Wade is about more than abortion. They simply do not like the way in which the court went about legalizing abortion. This is probably what McCain is getting at.

However, for prolifers who feel that any abortion is murder they will just move onto trying to limit the right to abortion through state legislatures. I don’t think most people want to see abortion become a crime again. I really don’t. Most people might understand limitations on demand, but a ban will not fly with the general population. So if it becomes a states rights issues there will be places where that 13 year old girl can get an abortion, and there will places where she can’t. I am not sure how that will work out.

Feb 19, 2007 - 1:07 pm 11. Rhod:

Blame Griswold v CT for Roe. That’s where the right to privacy was found, and that decision followed what was already happening in the area of birth control in the old Catholic northeast. The same, if you ask me, with Roe.

There’s a correlation between Roe and the staggering number of abortions, but not causation. Roe doesn’t cause abortions, people have abortions. The issue should be returned to the states, to community standards, but even with that it’s unlikely the result in fewer abortions nationwide.

Feb 19, 2007 - 1:12 pm 12. Southernops:

Roger,

We’ve already rejected McCain once (see 2000 primaries.) And while we are very conservative here in SC, we are not idiots. McCain’s sudden realization that he is anti Roe smacks of opportunism. It won’t work. Most of us here can’t get past his cozy relationship with Ted Kennedy or his condescending melt-down after Bush routed him here in 2000 (”get out of my face!” he growled to reporters on returning home from his humiliation in SC.) Sorry John, Senator Graham may see you as stepping stone to bigger things, but the majority of South Carolinians see you for what you really are: Just another two-faced politician who will say anything to get elected. Next!

Feb 19, 2007 - 1:15 pm 13. Buddy Larsen:

If I could whisper one thing in Rudy’s ear: “Don’t pander–it will no longer fly as well it has before”.

Feb 19, 2007 - 1:21 pm 14. ricpic:

Is McCain pandering? Yes. Should conservatives believe him? No.
But then why should conservatives give any more credence to the Giuliani flacks? who tell them that no matter how loosey-goosey Rudy is on social issues, not to worry, he’ll appoint strict constructionist judges: that’s where his heart really is.
They shouldn’t. They shouldn’t believe Giuliani any more than they believe McCain. Neither ones the real deal.

Feb 19, 2007 - 1:58 pm 15. Webutante:

Very rarely, Roger, do I think you competely miss the boat in a post. But here I do. Leaving the issue of “choice” aside for a moment, I think McCain is addressing a whole other issue with this announcement.

Styling himself as a Reagan Republican, McCain is opposing abortion on the grounds that it’s not a federal issue. As in enumerated powers in the Constitution. Rather, I think he believes it’s a states rights question. If this is the case, I wholeheartedly agree with him. It should never have been relegated to the feds. But now that the cat is out of the bag, there will be so much screaming and gnashing of teeth the real issue here may never be addressed.

McCain will never be elected anyway. He comes across as too tired and old.

Finally, the old argument about needing abortion in case your daughter gets raped just doesn’t hold much water anymore. It’s a knee jerk and dated reaction. You should check out the statistics and percentages on this. It’s truly a non-starter.

Feb 19, 2007 - 1:58 pm 16. Tom Holsinger:

Roger,

It is quite possible to be pro-choice while abhorring Roe v. Wade. I am. Within limits (rape, incest & the mother’s health), abortion is a political issue to be resolved by each state.

You KNOW which side will win at that point – look at South Dakota.

Feb 19, 2007 - 3:37 pm 17. Terrye:

Rhod:

I know what you are talking about, but it is not going to do conservatives any good to drag up that old law. The idea that married people could be prosecuted for getting birth control is not something conservatives to uphold, whatever the consitutional issue may be. Most Americans do believe there is a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution. And if conservatives run on the a platform that says people do not have a right to privacy…they will get creamed. Trust me.

Feb 19, 2007 - 3:44 pm 18. Rhod:

Terrye:

You misunderstood me. The right to privacy was derived in a court case (Griswold) which essentially upheld what people were already doing…and codified the right to the behavior. That’s all. The court rode the horse in the direction it was already going. (I was in CT in those days; I recall the entire affair.)

The same is true of abortion. Roe didn’t cause abortions to happen; Roe followed a pressure for this process that was already in place. I did not claim that conservatives stand to gain by questioning the validity of a right to privacy.

The problem with these issues is always, and forever, unintended consequences. The applied logic is that the “average person”, as understood by a judge, will behave in such and such a way upon attaining a particular “right”…where the process is always defined by the behaviors of people at the margins.

Roe encouraged more irresponsible behavior on the part of people already prone to irresponsible behavior. That’s what I believe, without having any data to support it.

Feb 19, 2007 - 4:05 pm 19. Tom Holsinger:

BTW, Roger, you sound like a GOP “base’r”.

Feb 19, 2007 - 4:12 pm 20. kleej5:

i agree with much of what you write but this idea to preserve Roe because of rape is not compelling. Basing the law of the land on rare cases makes bad laws.

As a pro-lifer I’m encouraged when a candidate “panders” to pro-life causes.

Feb 19, 2007 - 4:13 pm 21. Terrye:

Rhod:

If I understand it correctly the Griswold case was brought because of some old law that stated married people could not obtain birth control…and the Supreme Court stated that the law infringed on their right to privacy and the court later based the Roe decision on that finding. I know I am oversimplifying but my only point is that if conservatives base their argument on the belief that the Griswold decision was a bad one, it might not work too well for them.

And while it is easy to say that the states should handle it and that is all they want, it is not exactly true. Prolifers don’t just want abortion to be a matter for the states to decide, they want it ended. Therefor people do see the argument in that light.

Feb 19, 2007 - 5:09 pm 22. Terrye:

And it is not just about rape either. I don’t fell comfortable with the idea of abortion on demand but I also don’t feel comfortable making life altering decisions for other people when it is no sweat off my whatever. Some things just are not that simple.

Feb 19, 2007 - 5:12 pm 23. Rhod:

Terrye:

Due to an unconventional family arrangement, I lived part of my life in the American south, and part of it in CT from the mid 50’s until I left home. I can tell you that, in the 50’s, mechanical, as opposed to chemical, birth control devices were easily had everywhere I lived as a kid.

The issue in Griswold was the blue law system that effectively eliminated prescription birth control. Nevertheless, anyone who wanted some of the devices current then, could have them. Griswold, I repeat, did very little to alter the situation. New York was also nearby.

If the right to privacy is a stretched derivation, it remains so whether you think it’s tactically unwise to say so or not. I don’t understand your contention that we should be silent about it. But that’s not important, either.

You’re pro-choice, I’m not, but I’m also in favor of the states deciding the issue, and I think many conservatives feel the same. Because some pro-lifers (your term) want it eliminated is no less surprising than that many pro-choicers are influenced by racism or a stark utilitarianism.

Feb 19, 2007 - 5:27 pm 24. Rhod:

And yes, “some things just are not that simple”, but when the same things are just “no sweat off my whatever”, that’s a simplification that’s hard to beat. At any rate, this thread isn’t about abortion or Roe or Griswold. I’m done.

Feb 19, 2007 - 5:31 pm 25. Terrye:

Rhod:

Years ago an acquaintance of mine got pregnant after years of trying. She wanted the baby very much. Not long into the pregnancy she was told the fetus was damaged, in all probability it would not survive until delivery, certainly the baby would not leave the hospital. So she terminated the pregnancy for fear there would be additional complications which would make getting pregnant again more difficult. Such as infection due to spontaneous abortion.

Some busy bodies found out and the next thing you know the hospital is being picketed and people are carrying signs of dead fetuses. It broke her heart.

At the same time I don’t think any 15 year old should be able to get an abortion without her parents knowing about it.

Does that make me a lover of abortion?

That is my point. As for privacy…I guess we will disagree on that as well. I just don’t think many people are going to vote for someone who says they have no right to privacy.

Feb 19, 2007 - 5:51 pm 26. Luther McLeod:

Many good points made here. Perhaps the most salient being “I just don’t think many people are going to vote for someone who says they have no right to privacy.” Just to tighten up the nuance, I am, except in extreme circumstances, against third term abortions. Otherwise I do believe it is a woman’s right too choose. I don’t necessarily like my decision, but I think is is justifiable.

I am with Roger on his main point. None of these social issues, at present, make any difference too me. It will/would be many years before even a ‘constructionist’ court could make changes that effect the general populace.

The only issue that matters, is the war. Losing that, we are on the path to losing everything.

Feb 19, 2007 - 6:40 pm 27. Rhod:

Terrye:

First, you seem very prickly on an issue that I hardly discussed, and I didn’t claim in any way that you’re a lover of abortion.

Second, you don’t know my full views on the subject either, what exceptions I would make, whether I’ve been involved in them myself, or if I comprehend and appreciate the misfortunes you describe, because I haven’t discussed that either.

Third, your last sentence is incomprehensible to me. I said nothing about making a right to privacy a campaign issue, or that privacy in the general sense is unconstitutional. You keep insisting upon that. What I did say was that the legal standing of a right to privacy is penumbral, and campaign issue or not, vote-inducing or not, it’s still penumbral.

Fourth, parental notification worked itself in here. I didn’t say anything about it.

Feb 19, 2007 - 9:58 pm 28. Syl:

Roe is a done deal.

It won’t be overturned by people with signs, op-eds, demonstrations, or wishful thinking.

Get the constructonist judges in where you can, that will be good for all law.

The judges you appoint will assure that nothing like that will happen again. But to get those judges appointed you have to be in power.

And my feeling is if some of the rhetoric doesn’t cool down on this and gay marriage that power will keep slip sliding away.

I’m sick of it. I don’t think I’m the only one. I listened to the arguments and I’m fine with being both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I just don’t think abortion should be made illegal. It should be strongly discouraged and young women helped to make the proper choice whenever you can help.

I balk at being anti embryonic stem cell research. I see that as something the Pope says is wrong and we fer sure have never elected him to office.

I know I just sound stupid to you. But spare me. I’ve listened to the arguments, I know they are sincere, but you all have wrapped up the pro-life stuff into one neat package with a bow on top and allow NO dissent. It’s a bit too dogmatic for my tastes and the tastes of many voters.

Wow, is this a rant or what? On Roger’s dime. Sorry.

I’m with you folks on more issues than you know, but not this one. Not all the way.

Feb 20, 2007 - 12:29 am 29. Terrye:

Rhod:

Sorry, but I am not the one who brought up Griswold in the first place and that is about the right to privacy. And I don’t consider myself to be a strong prochoice either. My views are much the same as Syl’s on this. I just think that sometimes people try to make things more black and white than they are.

Feb 20, 2007 - 3:28 am 30. Terrye:

Luther:

I feel the same. The only time I could see a late term abortion would be if something had gone so wrong that survival of the mother is at stake. Even then it would seem that early delivery in some cases would be better than abortion.

Feb 20, 2007 - 3:32 am 31. Amy Alkon:

The term, “conservative,” has been totally bastardized by the religious of the Republican party. It’s why I tend not to vote Republican, except for common-sense moderates, like Schwarzenegger, whom I love, and voted for, with pleasure, twice.

Feb 20, 2007 - 4:38 am 32. Lem:

Amy what you call “bastardized” may also be called doing what is necessary within the law to effectively petition the government.

Feb 20, 2007 - 5:17 am 33. Lem:

We all know the story of Sodom and Gomorra were the question of the tipping point came up. My point is not about final judgment, but it is about our judgment here and now.

How many abortions a year would it take for a serious attempt at a course correction?

Democrats keep saying that a course correction is needed in Iraq and they are going about doing what they think they need to do to bring it about.

Would 250 thousand abortions a year bring about a warning from a surgeon general, a label, some kind of airbag?

If 250 would do why not 100?

Feb 20, 2007 - 5:35 am 34. Lem:

Some years ago I found this article very helpful.

Roe V Wade – The Unconstitutional Decision

Feb 20, 2007 - 5:59 am 35. LarryD:

McCain has no credibility on the issue of appointing strict constructionist judges, since he instigated the “Gang of 14″ which spiked the chances to get such judges voted on in the Senate.

And the BCRA (aka McCain/Finegold) shows how much regard he has for the First Amendment.

Feb 20, 2007 - 7:18 am 36. Rhod:

“The term “conservative” has been totally bastardized by the religious of the Republican Party”.

Wow, I’ll tell Russell Kirk, if he’s still alive!

“It’s why I tend to not vote Republican, except for….Shwarzenegger…”

Wow, again. There’s a political philosophy to conjure with!

Feb 20, 2007 - 8:57 am 37. Rhod:

I agree, though. I always votes against “terms’ when I can.

Feb 20, 2007 - 8:59 am 38. TheManTheMyth:

Syl—methinks you are going way way way way WAY out on a limb putting gay “marriage” in the same category with Roe v. Wade. There is nowhere NEAR the support for gay “marriage” that there is for keeping abortion–at least under some circumstances–legal–let alone for protecting a right to privacy. Not saying it is right or wrong in some metaphysical sense–just saying it is so.

Feb 20, 2007 - 9:25 am 39. Paul Hager:

Two comments:

(1) I doubt that the two-party system is to blame for candidates playing to their base. In a multi-party system driven by proportional representation (PR), there will be more partisanship, not less. Nor is there any need to “run to the center” in the general election under PR since membership in the legislative body is largely guaranteed. In the sort of system I favor – single member districts with Condorcet or Approval voting – if there were a primary system as there is today, you’d still see candidates playing to their base in the primary. The main difference would be that the center in the general election would not be defined unidimensionally. Candidates would still probably try to find it, though.

(2) I’m pro-choice, but I’ve long thought that Roe arrived at the correct decision by largely incorrect reasoning. Everything really hangs on the “privileges or immunities” clause of Sec 1 of the 14th Amendment (effectively nullified in the Slaughter House Cases back in 1873) coupled with the definition of citizenship as “persons born or naturalized…”. I’ve never seen a true originalist analysis of abortion so it is certainly possible I could be argued out of my constitutional position. If I’m right about the 14th, it is an instance where a close reading of the text produces an unanticipated outcome from the standpoint of the Framers of the 14th. That’s not an argument against originalism, mind you. Just an argument that opponents need to amend the Constitution.

Feb 20, 2007 - 10:20 am 40. dclydew:

There are a whole load of really bad Federal laws. There are many, many instances where the federal government has involved itself in what many consider State, local or personal issues.

Medical Marijuana – Several States have voted to legalized marijuana for individuals that are prescribed the drug by their doctors. The federal government still raids and jails individuals for their use of a drug, legally prescribed in their State. They’ve arrested and tried individuals for growing marijuana that their local government had contracted to have grown.

Right to Life/Death etc – Terri Schaivo… enough said.

Federal Income Tax – Depending on how you choose to interpret some of our founding documents, a federal income tax may actually be unconstitutional.

Gay Marriage – If the life or death of an unborn child is something best left to States… then it seems silly to think that a civil contract, where no life is at stake, would exist at a higher level… yet, some who complain about Roe v. Wade, endorse a Federal Amendment to the Constitution regarding this.

My point is not that we should be pro-gay pot smoking people who don’t want life support and don’t pay taxes… rather, my point is that Roe v Wade is one of MANY issues wherein the Federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds (prayer in school too, as an afterthought). Why then, is Roe v. Wade the loudly proclaimed, widely endorsed “Constitutionalist” position?

The answer, from my perspective at least, seems to be that the groups who loudly, proudly and constantly yell about Roe v Wade, often appear to have more of an issue with Abortion, than with the Constitution. (noted by the pictures of fetuses etc. as opposed to pictures of our founding documents)

I’m not gonna blame this on Christian conservatives, some of the staunchest supporters of Medical marijuana are Christians that realize how useful it can be in helping terminally or painfully ill individuals (Some Christians actually act like Christ!!!). There are notable Christian voices dissenting from the federal income tax and from federal involvement in life vs. death decisions for clinically dead individuals. Heck, there are Christians that support stem cell research (while pointing out that government dollars were not intended for Medical research).

In the end… I find that strict interpreters of the constitution have a whole lot of issues that they are concerned about, while anti-abortion individuals occasionally borrow their arguments to give their position the air of honesty. Politicians that talk about the Constitution and then only discuss Roe v Wade, seem (to me) as panderers. I don’t think they really care about the Constitution or abortion, they simply realize that often they can get several sheep by making bleating noises about Roe. Consider how much hasn’t changed since the election of GWB (while his party held majorities in Congress and the Senate). He made noises about Gay Marriage and abortion and all of the other issues… but he never actually tried to do anything about them. They were simply rhetoric used to con Americans (just like all the other politicians).

But, I could be wrong.

Feb 21, 2007 - 2:07 pm 41. dclydew:

Lem:

How many abortions a year would it take for a serious attempt at a course correction?

A course correction for whom? For those that believe it EVIL, or those that believe it simply a personal choice? And for there to be a correction, one would think that there must be a Correct way to start with. Do you know the correct way, sans an interperted personal system of metaphysics?

Feb 21, 2007 - 2:14 pm 42. Bostonian:

I’ve come to think that the only way to “resolve” (I use the word loosely) the abortion debate is for this particular matter to be decided by popular vote, state by state.

I think it is the only way that the results would be considered legitimate by a solid majority. There would always be a minority who was angry about the result; that’s the way it goes.

In other words, I think this issue is too important to be left to our servants in Washington.

Feb 21, 2007 - 3:10 pm 43. Sandy P:

Late to the party, but Shrinkwrapped has some wonderful, thoughtful and thought-provoking posts up about abortion.

Feb 22, 2007 - 10:28 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: