Cathy Young offers important humane, practical advice to caregivers on both sides of the abortion legalization question or hopefully on neither side of the question. This is good because most of the talk is about the question itself.
However, on that question itself it cannot be said often enough despite its obviousness that the five w…
Cathy Young offers important humane, practical advice to caregivers on both sides of the abortion legalization question or hopefully on neither side of the question. This is good because most of the talk is about the question itself.
However, on that question itself it cannot be said often enough despite its obviousness that the five which have overturned Roe have not and don't intend to answer that question. Instead they have agreed with the overwhelming majority of legal scholars of different political stripes that the task the Roe court took on in the words of Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely "sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court's business". Here's my reasoning: The Constitution enumerates the "right to life". So, nobody questions a compelling state interest to protect "life" as many have easily questioned a state interest in banning contraception or in limiting marriage to heterosexuals. In the case of abortion the Roe court thought that limiting state's interest in protecting the right to life of a blameless product of conception required them to create a definition of protected "life" out of the limited toolbox of the court of written, case and common law. Common sense and legal scholarship has judged this to be presumptuous and willful. I recommend a look at the section "Responses within the legal profession" in the "Roe v Wade" Wikipedia article. (Isn't Wikipedia wonderful?) Tribe and Dershowitz may try to trip each other in the halls of Harvard, but, they agree on this matter. Archibald Cox, Cass Sunstein, Ginsburg et al. thought that Roe's presumption was a bridge too far, many "arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."
Legislative movement is what we are going to get now, delayed for 50 years by Roe, whether we like it or not. Now your opinion matters. In my opinion it is good and true that this be put to a vote, not because it's "just a matter of opinion" but because it is a huge question and a tough call, to which we the people have never made explicit agreement. You can't just leave it to the individual because at some point in development we don't, so, you have to say when. (The Spartans thought it was ok to leave in the woods babies with hands too small to hold a sword.) No easy way out on this. OMG. No dead white guys to rely on.
How am I going to vote? Well, my mother once rode her bike to Washington to protest the legalization of abortion, but, I'm leaning toward the polls.
Cathy Young offers important humane, practical advice to caregivers on both sides of the abortion legalization question or hopefully on neither side of the question. This is good because most of the talk is about the question itself.
However, on that question itself it cannot be said often enough despite its obviousness that the five which have overturned Roe have not and don't intend to answer that question. Instead they have agreed with the overwhelming majority of legal scholars of different political stripes that the task the Roe court took on in the words of Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely "sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court's business". Here's my reasoning: The Constitution enumerates the "right to life". So, nobody questions a compelling state interest to protect "life" as many have easily questioned a state interest in banning contraception or in limiting marriage to heterosexuals. In the case of abortion the Roe court thought that limiting state's interest in protecting the right to life of a blameless product of conception required them to create a definition of protected "life" out of the limited toolbox of the court of written, case and common law. Common sense and legal scholarship has judged this to be presumptuous and willful. I recommend a look at the section "Responses within the legal profession" in the "Roe v Wade" Wikipedia article. (Isn't Wikipedia wonderful?) Tribe and Dershowitz may try to trip each other in the halls of Harvard, but, they agree on this matter. Archibald Cox, Cass Sunstein, Ginsburg et al. thought that Roe's presumption was a bridge too far, many "arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."
Legislative movement is what we are going to get now, delayed for 50 years by Roe, whether we like it or not. Now your opinion matters. In my opinion it is good and true that this be put to a vote, not because it's "just a matter of opinion" but because it is a huge question and a tough call, to which we the people have never made explicit agreement. You can't just leave it to the individual because at some point in development we don't, so, you have to say when. (The Spartans thought it was ok to leave in the woods babies with hands too small to hold a sword.) No easy way out on this. OMG. No dead white guys to rely on.
How am I going to vote? Well, my mother once rode her bike to Washington to protest the legalization of abortion, but, I'm leaning toward the polls.