Just so we're clear: Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right

[cali]

that's what Roe v Wade held. That right is rooted in the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

The 'Roe' Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[ejpoeta]

1. unless you are against it, and are willing to harrass, bomb and kill

because you don't like the laws as they are. but god forbid someone dare to question any of YOUR protected rights!

[cali]

2. evidently not all DUers understand Roe.

There are quite a few misconceptions right here at DU.

[pnutbutr]

5. supreme courts sets precedent it does not make law n/t

[cali]

6. The SC interprets the Constitution and

decides law. Your comment makes no sense. What the fuck do you think precedent is?

[pnutbutr]

7. precedent is not law and the Roe v. Wade decision left

some of the decisions regarding abortion up to the states.

"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."

The Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection was separate from the notion of when life begins: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." The Court only believed itself positioned to resolve the question of when a right to abortion exists.

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

[cali]

9. That the CONSTITUTIONAL right to an abortion isn't absolute

does not make it any less of a right. First Amendment rights aren't absolute either.

Roe v. Wade is law. It's the fucking law of the land, genius. I have no idea why you're babbling on about precedent not being law. that's just absurd.

[pnutbutr]

11. how does precedent change then? n/t

[Orsino]

3. ...if you have the resources to outlast all the speed bumps added by the far right...

...and can find and get to a doctor who is still willing to perform the procedure.

We have a constitutionally-protected right to bell that cat.

[cali]

4. yes, in the last 25 years or so, many speed bumps have been

put in place. In some states, it's very, very difficult for a woman to avail herself of that constitutionally protected right.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Actually, the states have turned it into a priviledge. nt

[cali]

10. some states have. others have not.

it's still a constitutional right, under Roe, no matter how tattered it's become.

[pnutbutr]

12. With limitations apparently

"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."

The Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection was separate from the notion of when life begins: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." The Court only believed itself positioned to resolve the question of when a right to abortion exists.

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

[cali]

13. few rights are "unlimited". That includes those enumerated in the bill of rights.

[pnutbutr]

14. and the SCOTUS determines the limitations

depending on the specific situations brought before the court. A decision sets precedence on future cases brought before the court of similar basis. The decision does not have to mirror the previous ruling though and new precedent can be established. This is why the SCOTUS does not in fact make law.

[cali]

15. whether one calls it interpreting the law or making law,

SC decisions become the law. yes, those decisions can become null and void in the future, but that doesn't make them not legally binding while they stand. So, through interpreting the law, the SC does indeed make law.

[pnutbutr]

16. ok, I see the problem here

You now understand precedent somewhat but are fighting with the understanding that it is not binding in cases where it can be used. You have one court who has set precedence and says we interpreted this law to back this case in this way for this reason. You have another court who gets a similar case and can rules that they interpreted this law to not back this case in this way for this reason. Precedent is specific examples of how a law can be applied in a certain case. Some are more obvious than others and they usually never make it to the supreme court. The few that are not so obvious come to the supreme court and when a ruling is made, as with any other court system it sets precedence for that specific case and future ones that are similar to it. For precedence to apply the cases have to be almost identical. The supreme court does not bypass the division of powers and create law.