The essence of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is that Constitutional rights apply only after birth; hence abortion does not breach a person’s right to life. States cannot regulate 1st trimester abortions; states can regulate but not ban 2nd trimester abortions; and states can ban 3rd trimester abortions (as many have).
The essence of the 1973 Row v. Wade decision was dur_flush can either row or wade to safety after bartender tipout, can row but not wade after bathroom guy tipout - and can neither row nor wade to safety after bouncer tip out.
The original "Wade" in the Roe v Wade case was the District Attorney in Dallas, Texas. He was so obsessed with winning every case his office prosecuted that many Dallas criminal attorneys told clients with rock solid proof they were innocent that they should plead to a lesser charge. Wade was not well liked outside of the party leaders, but somehow kept the job for decades.
There was a claim, shortly after the USSC, decision that the court ruled for Roe because one of the Justices knew - and hated - Wade. Not likely to be true, but think how different the political scene might be if Wade had not decided to persecute (criminally prosecute) a confused and hurting young woman.
Negative, that is a point taken by detractors. The jist of the decision is simply that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Abortion my seem unsavory, but in some cases it is necessary.
So who decides, her clergy, her parents, a judge, Nut Case Texas DA Wade?
The decision is that the woman decides for herself.
Don't like that? Well maybe then we need to make it like in Brave New World.
11 comments
Latest
The essence of the 1973 Row v. Wade decision was dur_flush can either row or wade to safety after bartender tipout, can row but not wade after bathroom guy tipout - and can neither row nor wade to safety after bouncer tip out.
Lova u bra
A. Two ways of getting across a creek.
Al Sharpton's answer on Washington's decision of how to cross the Delaware river.
There was a claim, shortly after the USSC, decision that the court ruled for Roe because one of the Justices knew - and hated - Wade. Not likely to be true, but think how different the political scene might be if Wade had not decided to persecute (criminally prosecute) a confused and hurting young woman.
Negative, that is a point taken by detractors. The jist of the decision is simply that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Abortion my seem unsavory, but in some cases it is necessary.
So who decides, her clergy, her parents, a judge, Nut Case Texas DA Wade?
The decision is that the woman decides for herself.
Don't like that? Well maybe then we need to make it like in Brave New World.
Until then, the woman gets to decide.
SJG