What's Wrong With Roe v. Wade?

Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade.

Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school.

For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.

When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized.

Interestingly, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available.

Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than someone's assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet.

It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35.

Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.

Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly.

My understanding is that was what the Committees in the state legislatures were for, writing and reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent.

Hey, it's for the good of the planet, and expands the "free market" for the abortion clinics in the process.

For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now?

At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples has never been higher.

Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy?

Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?

I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones.

This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think.

And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Those rights referred to as unalienable are acknowledged as "endowed by the Creator."  A Creator they clearly acknowledged.

Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants.

 "Loving thy neighbor," and the story of the Good Samaritan are examples of the scriptural basis upon which the "freedom of religion" provisions were meant to flesh out in our "new" government which had been denied them in England under the Church of England's dominance during the 18th Century.

Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel.

It does seem the founder's knew what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.

The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it.

Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning.

If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, then God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteresses were pregnant.

It is also biblically clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation by directing them to "go forth and multiply."

And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households optimally, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.

What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness.

It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own, before dehydration of her vital organs caused her body to literally feed upon itself until her execution. 

She was also a practicing Catholic, and nowhere in the court documents does it appear her civil rights, and individual religious beliefs were even given any consideration during that entire multi-year fight over the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes.

The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it.

Her "right to life" without clearly artificial life support in its termination by fiat was nothing more than judicially sanctioned murder.

Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and "freedom" sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.

Big Brother wants to ride shotgun in your car

I'm a near RINO from the suburban Northeast who supported Rudy Giuliani and the Patriot Act.

So when my back is up about a proposal as being destructive of civil liberties, maybe this is something that might resonate with the apolitical general public

Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes. ......

In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.

Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland area, proved the idea could work.

Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.

Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said he and his task force have assured people that the program does not track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

"I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.

Well, Mr. Whitty, last time I checked Verizon didn't bill me based on where I made my calls. I also can turn off my cell phone, now can't I.  Verizon also is not the government.

Let's look at this extraordinary proposal. I'm sure Oregon needs money to fix roads and maybe the gas tax is obsolete. Fine. But do we need to respond by creating a system where the location of every vehicle in the state is tracked every moment of every day on whatever road it gets driven on?

I have an EZ Pass to speed my way through toll booths in NY State, NJ  and MA. They've been very effective in divorce litigation to puncture alibis.  This would be taking that de minimis privacy violation (one can choose not to use EZ Pass) and placing it on steroids.

I'm not buying "the technology is primitive" argument. I've seen pictures of my house on Google Earth where the color of my car in the driveway was easily visible. I have little doubt a GPS tax tracker will become equally detailed.

There is also the fact that once the American public buys into allowing their cars to be tracked morning, noon and night by the government all you fans of the Second Amendment will find this puts limits on gun registration on the road straight to Heller.   (yep, you can't ban guns but we'll put tracking chips on all of 'em)

I recall Chris Dodd shut down the Senate when the FISA act was used to "invade the privacy" of a few terrorists calling overseas. I'm sure now the Senator will voice outrage that technology would be used to track the whereabouts of every law abiding citizen in a, ahem "Countrywide" fashion?   Right? It's one thing to trade some freedom for security. See Justice Jackson's take on this. 

 Trading our liberties to make the taxman's job a bit easier? What of that, our liberal friends?

There's a reasonable , less intrusive way to implement this. If the state wants to tax the use of certain roads and do "time of day' pricing in congested urban areas, just put up old fashioned toll booths and let people get EZ Pass if they choose. And if they want to do a mileage tax, make it like the 1040 and require drivers to self assess annually. The shortage (if any) can be paid at sale or trade in of the car by checking the odometer and collecting the shortfall then at time of transaction.

Simple, proven and no privacy concerns.

But the bigger implications here is that liberals want to change behavior and know about behavior. It's not about collecting the most money the most effiicient way possible to pay for their stuff.  Many people in government aren't mercantilists, they are social engineers.

And a database of personal whereabouts is a virtual treasure trove for them to correct our behavior. Maybe I should trust the goverment with this personal data.  After all, this stuff is never used to harass political opponents, now is it? 

Now , you might think... this is just some tree hugging state on the Left Coast out to impose itself on its populace. Not so. This is gonna to be , as ZZ Top sang, bad, and nationwide

There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this.....

Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways, bridges and transit programs in good shape.

But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said  Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee


We are likely to see a tsunami of lefty social engineering proposals try and blitz a dazed public in the first weeks of the Obama Administration. I would like to think this is one socialist vehicle that ought to be disabled in the driveway before it gets down the road and runs down the Fourth Amendment.  

Who's with me?

Big Brother or just the future of marketing?

I'll defer to the cyberpunks here. Evidently the CT AG sees something nefarious about a cable internet provider selling user preferences, but given the number of mortgage promotions I've gotten this week after researching the Dodd/Countrywide story I'm sure my ISP is doing the same thing.

Syndicate content