OK, folks, let's have some fun. I'm feelin' like an argument today. And if you don't like what's said here, then you'll have to drop a line to us here.
Let me start off with a simple statement that even liberals can understand: Roe v. Wade was a mistake. Pure and simple. And not only was it a mistake, but it sets a bad precedent. It's a mistake for two reasons. The first is that it's bad law. Roe v. Wade is based on a precedent that quite simply does not exist. That's the right to privacy.
Now I know that everyone's going to jump up and down and say that there's a right to privacy. But guess what, kids? There's NO right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution, the original or any of the amendments. How do ya like them apples? So what do the justices do? They cook up some idea that the right to privacy has shown up over other Court decisions! Yeah, whatever. The direct quote is:
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy. In a line of decisions, however ... 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... (410 US 113 [1973])
The case that was the basis for Roe v. Wade was another case! That's not the basis for good law, frankly, because that previous case (Griswold v. Connecticut) had to dream up a right to privacy all its own. Justice White was right in his dissent, when he said, "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers..."
Roe v. Wade is bad law also because of the style in which it's written. It's very vague, and can be interpreted to mean anything from allowing very few abortions to allowing abortion on demand, which is how it has been interpreted many times. The judges just didn't do a good job with it. In fact, my freshman, first semester Introduction to Ethics class ripped the decision apart (of course, it didn't hurt that my professor, Prof. Siegel, also had a J.D. in constitutional law). If only the judges had written a better, clearer, more logical decision, we could have all been saved a whole lot of pain.
That's the first problem with Roe v. Wade: that it's bad law. The second problem is more fundamental, and one that many people have a problem with. Roe v. Wade is judicial activism at its worst. I'm not a fan of judicial activism to begin with (and heere comes the mail!). Back in the '50s, Earl Warren was made Chief Justice, and decided that Congress and the executive weren't doing enough. So he decided to throw his hat in the ring. He, and later Warren Burger, were both known for being activist Chief Justices. The current C.J., Rehnquist, is more conservative, but even he has done some activist stuff. Anyhow, enough with the history lesson. Some of the stuff that the Court did back then was good: I will never argue against the principles of Brown v. the Board of Education. However, I'm a strict-constructionist, so even with something that did the good of Brown, I still have problems. And that's where Roe v. Wade comes in. The justices gave a writ of certiorari because they felt that this idea should be addressed, that's why they hear cases. But this whole idea that the Court had to make a decision is, in my opinion, flawed. I feel that this decision is personal, even though I oppose it. As such, I believe it should be dealt with on the legislative level if not on a state by state level. Either way, it's not the Court's place to make a decision here. And quite frankly, if it was decentralized as I'd like, there are quite a few places where it would be eliminated, places where it exists today because of the Court's decision.
Enough of my rantings. If you've got an opinion on this, please email me on it. If I get any good responses, they'll be posted here.