Anniversary of Roe V Wade

Today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision, Roe V Wade in 1973. It is a very interesting opinion--it helps to articulate the concept of right to privacy that everyone uses, those who value this opinion and those who are working to reverse this opinion. Section VIII reads as follows (italics and bold, are mine):

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.


While it gives women bodily autonomy in the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, the right is a finite one. She may only make the decision on her own during the first trimester, during the second and third trimesters she needs to seek medical opinions,which can trump hers. Further along in the section, Justice Blackmun writes:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.



For those of you who have never read the decision you may find it, and the dissent here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

IMHO, We have a LOT of work to do to have women recognized as full individuals capable of making decisions throughout their lives, on their own, with full bodily autonomy. Without this ability, we are not seen as individuals.

Palin:Not good for our children and other living things

Sarah Palin might not be healthy for our children and other living things:
Sarah Palin does not believe in sex education. "Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support" This is NOT about Bristol Palin's pregnancy, but about the HEALTH of teens having unprotected sex: 1 in 4 American Girls (and the studies only studied girls, not the boys) have an STD.
This goes hand in hand with her stand on NO abortion EXCEPT if the mother's life is in danger. Thus, (young) females who are impregnated by family or stranger rapes will carry the pregnancy to term according to Palin's beliefs: punish the victim! 25%of rapes result in pregnancy,btw.
She is also not for giving our children a good education--she believes that creationism is a valid theory and should be taught in our public schools; and that books banning books is an okay practice in a democracy.

Palin's environmental creds are very questionable: not only does she NOT believe in the human cause of global warming, she advocated voting down a state proposition that would have banned metal mines from discharging pollution into salmon streams; she signed into being laws that let oil and gas companies nearly triple the amount of toxic waste they can dump into Cook Inlet (an important fishery). So, along with her "drill, baby, drill" energy policy ( and tho' she mouthed the words alternative energy at the convention, as governor she actually vetoed a wind energy project's funding).

McCain bad for women, bad for human rights

McCain might "love" women, but he does not care about their rights. He skipped the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act vote, because he said it would just "lead to more lawsuits." He thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, and that we need a constitutional amendment (!) banning abortions. And, he wants to limit the distribution of contraceptives. . .
See http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/11/mccain-women-want/
See also Frank Rich's column yesterday www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Not to mention that his position on torture has changed, and he feels that the recent Supreme Court decision which states that prisoners held on Guantanamo do have habeas corpus rights, i.e. the right to court hearings is wrong.

The Right to Choose is under attack, still

Antiabortion activists in several states are starting campaigns to grant "personhood" to embryos, thus, giving them the same legal protections as all citizens. They are pushing state constitutional amendments that would define the start of life upon conception, this re-definition (Roe V Wade did not touch this, we have granted citizenship to babies once they are born) would effectively outlaw abortions and some birth control methods.

January is the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion. Abortion foes have tried various restrictions --waiting periods,parental notification, bans against late term abortions-- to limit abortions, but not access to birth control which might actually lower the number of abortions performed. There are 1.3 million abortions are performed in the US each year. Abstinence education has lead to epidemic proportions of sexually transmitted diseases.

Redefining when life begins is a way to circumvent waiting for the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v Wade.

Note that Rudy Giuliani has changed position from being pro-choice as Mayor to being anti-abortion as a presidential candidate. He is currently using coded language such as wanting to appoint "strict constructionist judges' to the Supreme Court.