Framing of Roe V. Wade

[LuckyTheDog]

Roe is not about "judicial overreaching." It is about LEGISLATIVE overreaching.

The real issue us whether or not the framers of the Constitution intended the government to have the power to intrude on private medical decisions. One side said thinks individuals and their doctors were incapable of accurately addressing the issue of medical decisions and that it was the duty of the daddy state to step in. The other side correctly sees that the government has no role in such decisions.

The spectacle of the Terri Schiavo case brought this issue to light in a clear way. Some people actually thought Congress should legislate what was a family matter. Others found no such power to do so in the Constitution.

So, this is what it comes down do: There are those who want to use state power to strip away our power to make private decisions about our lives and our medical care -- that is a power NOT granted to them by the Constitution. And now, we face the possibility of having an activist court that will give them the power to do that.

The fact that such power is NOT granted by the Constitution is immaterial to the judicial holy rollers.
They will "find" that power by looking to certain areas of the Bible, which they see as the "foundation of our law." Again, that is a concept that is nowhere in the Constitution.

[izzybeans]

1. Medical Privacy Rights are reserved

for Rush Limbaugh. Everyone knows that. Nobody else has the right to privacy. ;)

You put it very well actually. It puts substance behind the irony of the anti-choice position. Thanks!

[LuckyTheDog]

6. Do me a favor

Please cut and paste my post and send it to the folks in your email address list.

[izzybeans]

10. I already used it.

[fasttense]

2. When the Constitution was written abortions were legal.

In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s, forbidding abortion AFTER the fourth month of pregnancy (they actually called it quickening). So a woman could still get a legal abortion in 1820 up to the fourth month.

So the Constitution never addressed abortion and our founding fathers supported it.

[Broke In Jersey]

3. abortions were legal & not addressed when the constitution was written...

but so was slavery...

[dogfacedboy]

4. Two different issues. n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

5. Very different issues

Look, I can get why people don't like abortion. I don't like it, either. But if you really want to limit abortions in the real world, then declaring it illegal should be far down on the priority list. Some of the countries that "ban" abortion have the highest actual abortion rates.

[fasttense]

12. Slavery was addressed when the constitution was written. George Mason

tried to get them to outlaw it. But of course he didn't succeed. But it was an issue. Abortion was never discussed because no one thought it was wrong.

[michiganbuckeye1970]

7. Constitution as Expansive

The way the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, is written shows that the document is meant to be expansive, not restrictive. Conservatives want to spread this bullshit about narrowly defining the constitution, but it is clear (at least I think so) that the consititution was meant to be expansive of rights rather than restrictive.

In other words, anytime the government says, "hey, you can't do this," or says, "we (the gov't) can do this to you" the constitution is there to ensure freedoms are not being usurped.

So when conservatives indicate they prefer a narrow or literal interpretation of the constitution, really what they are saying is, let's not let freedom get out of hand... I don't know why democrats don't attack on this point.

One last point. The justices in Roe did not legalize abortion. What they said was is that the state cannot restrict it. If something is a right, it is a right...period. It is not up to Congress to determine if something is a right or not (unless they are doing their part on a constitutional amendment). That's the judicary job to make sure the a moronic majority cannot burn and slash at their whim.

Conservative judges have done far more legislating from the bench in their decision to let corporations pretty much do whatever they want...

[RB TexLa]

8. remember the last time (only time) we used the constitution to limit

rights? The 18th amendment. Yeah that worked out real well. All we got out of that was deaths from faulty products and organized crime with huge amounts of cash going into the depression.

[ourbluenation]

9. frame it like this - are ya pro-choice or pro-coat hanger?

Thanks to Zenlitened for that great, great slogan. It's brilliant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x230037

[Pathwalker]

11. Roe V Wade IS your right to privacy!!!! I read it here, on DU,

that Roe V Wade CODIFIED into law the FOURTH Amendment, which grants us the right of privacy from our government. When a pro-lifer I know started arguing again about the necessity of overturning this law, I just shrugged my shoulders, and informed her that as soon as Roe was overturned, she could expect to let the Feds into her home, because she would no longer have ANY right to privacy from the government she despises. The look on her face said that this is a very good "framing" of this issue.