Author Topic: Roe v. Wade overturned?  (Read 15227 times)

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7955
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #75 on: May 04, 2022, 10:39:05 AM »
I do not like abortion but as a cisgender male, I am also of the opinion that I would be way out of my league to make a decision on whether a woman should get an abortion or not. I wished that Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brent Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch thought likewise. Thrown into the court at the very tail end of the Trump presidency and with no juridical experience, Amy Coney Barrett was predictable. (I only mention this because Barrett hasn’t had time to find her way with limited experience. The author of the Roe v. Wade opinion was Associate Justice Harry Blackmun who was a Republican appointed by Richard Nixon. How’s that for a kick in the pants?) It should be noted also that both Brent Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch have been caught in their duplicity given that they affirmed that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. All you have to do is ask both Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who voted to affirm on that basis.
As with many, on both sides of the fence, abortion is an all-or-nothing issue. There is extremism in both camps but the party on the right can take the cake when Cassie Smedile, Executive Director of America Rising Pro-Trump PAC, on Fox News recently said that Democrats are advocating for the right to have an abortion beyond the birth of the child. Ask anyone what that could be, I am pretty sure that most people would call that murder. This kind of rhetoric wiles up a lot of people who don’t wear their thinking caps very well and is of course, very irresponsible.
I think Sister Joan Chitister, a Roman Catholic nun, said it very succinctly: I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth.

So when the same sex attraction gene is located on the genome, you’ll be fine with the whole sale slaughter that will ensue? If this nation kills 80% of the people with Down’s Syndrome, what do you think will happen when folks are given an opportunity to achieve a final solution of the homosexual question?

"Freedom" and "women's rights" or something.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7021
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #76 on: May 04, 2022, 10:45:15 AM »
Bishop Eaton has called the American legal system "fundamentally flawed".  My assumption, then, is that it is the position of the ELCA that the American legal system is fundamentally flawed. Now, "fundamental" is roughly synonymous with "foundational".  That would suggest that any alleged "foundational right" would be one that is "fundamentally flawed".  And since the only way to correct a "fundamental flaw" is to change the foundation, I assume that the ELCA is in favor of overturning this "foundational right".   I'm really confused.  Are foundational rights fundamentally flawed or not.  And if so, why not fundamentally change them? :-\
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4997
    • View Profile
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12218
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #78 on: May 04, 2022, 11:12:44 AM »
Thrown into the court at the very tail end of the Trump presidency and with no juridical experience, Amy Coney Barrett was predictable. (I only mention this because Barrett hasn’t had time to find her way with limited experience.

??

Law clerk for Scalia as well as for a US Court of Appeals judge for 3 years. Professor at Notre Dame Law School for five years. Judge on the US Court of Appeals for 3 years.

It should be noted also that both Brent Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch have been caught in their duplicity given that they affirmed that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land.

Psst! Mr. Martim... Roe v Wade was and still is the law of the land.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7955
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #79 on: May 04, 2022, 11:16:51 AM »
Thrown into the court at the very tail end of the Trump presidency and with no juridical experience, Amy Coney Barrett was predictable. (I only mention this because Barrett hasn’t had time to find her way with limited experience.

??

Law clerk for Scalia as well as for a US Court of Appeals judge for 3 years. Professor at Notre Dame Law School for five years. Judge on the US Court of Appeals for 3 years.

It should be noted also that both Brent Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch have been caught in their duplicity given that they affirmed that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land.

Justice Barrett is too pretty to work so hard.  Bless her heart.  It's so unfair to cast her into this career she's totally unprepared for.

Oh, also.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8XJrFtvmaQ

It's funny to me that there is no animal on this planet more sexist than a bourgeoisie liberal white male.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #80 on: May 04, 2022, 12:01:02 PM »
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7955
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #81 on: May 04, 2022, 01:08:12 PM »
It's amazing how people treat this decision as sacrosanct.  In reality, it's an embarrassment to the Court.

https://www.nrlc.org/communications/resources/savagelatimes091405/

"At the court’s private conference, the seven justices agreed that the Texas law was extreme and unconstitutional, according to the notes of several justices. Even Byron R. White, a critic of abortion, said doctors must be permitted to act when there were 'health problems.'

Blackmun voiced disdain for feminists who said women deserved control over their bodies. 'There is no absolute right to do with one’s body what you like,' he said. But he agreed that the Texas law was extreme and said it did 'not go far enough to protect doctors.'

The Georgia law was much better, the justices said, except for a requirement that three doctors approve an abortion.

Days later, the liberal justices were irked to receive a memo from Burger saying he had chosen Blackmun to write both opinions. With little guidance from colleagues, Blackmun and his clerks began research."

* * *

"On Nov. 21, two weeks after Nixon’s reelection, Blackmun sent around revised drafts of the majority opinions. The Roe opinion said that for the first three months of a pregnancy, states must 'leave the abortion decision to the best medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.'

In a memo to his colleagues, however, he voiced uncertainty.

'This has proved for me to be both difficult and elusive…. You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical,' he wrote, referring to a cutoff date for permitting abortions. 'This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.' The first trimester is the first three months of a pregnancy.

Brennan, Marshall and Powell wrote back to say that allowing abortions until 'viability' – when a fetus has developed enough to live outside the womb – at six months made more sense.

Douglas disagreed. 'I favor the first trimester, rather than viability,' he said. He was outvoted, however, and Blackmun said he would revise the opinion over the Christmas holidays. In his final draft, states were told they could not restrict abortions through the second trimester.

That change would become the focus of today’s legal and political battles. Opponents have especially condemned a procedure they call partial-birth abortion, which usually takes place in the fifth or sixth month of a pregnancy.

Blackmun’s opinion ends by saying: 'The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment…. The abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision…. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.'

As some scholars later said, his opinion treated the pregnant woman as a bit player in a doctor’s drama."


They weren't concerned with a woman's rights, nor with the Constitution. Powell wanted to ensure women did not die from abortion, but Blackmun was worried about protecting his doctor buddies.  And this wasn't a principled ruling, it was crafted to create a majority to reach the result they wanted. 

People who act as if this is some enlightened statement about Constitutional law are blind.  It is naked, raw power dressed up in a skin suit pretending to be Constitutional law.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19355
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #82 on: May 04, 2022, 02:06:00 PM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/roe-v-wade-overturned-supreme-court-abortion-draft-alitos-legal-analys-rcna27205

This NBC editorial considers Alito's ruling to be disastrous and abortion to be a critical, fundamental right. From the article:

This formulation, together with a narrow articulation of potential rights, all but dooms any right that did not exist since the founding of the nation — a ludicrous standard given how both our culture and our values have progressed over time. We ought not to be relying on a history filled with racism, sexism and homophobia to determine our fundamental rights today. This approach merely perpetuates historical inequalities, like that between men and women. 

I think the author's complaint shows the chasm between left and right. The Constitution (including the 9th Amendment) recognizes rights, it does not confer them. Obviously, you have no rights today that didn't exist at the founding of the nation. For a pro-choice argument to make even a modicum of sense it must declare that our creator endowed us with a right to abortion even then, and the government had always been wrong not to recognize it. But this progressive author seems to be operating with the understanding that new rights come into being with social "progress". This means that our rights are not endowed by a higher authority than the government or Constitution but rather are conferred by them. Yet the author simultaneously argues that the Court is wrong to deny the right to abortion. It is self-contradictory. If rights are conferred by the government/courts/Constitution, then the ruling can't be wrong. There is no higher standard from which to deviate. It just is what it is. But if rights are conferred by a higher authority and only recognized by the government, then obviously we can only have the same fundamental rights today that we had at the nation's founding. Unless, of course, you believe God began endowing new fundamental human rights to His creatures in the 19th and 20th Centuries, but only in certain countries.   

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5564
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #83 on: May 04, 2022, 02:10:47 PM »
It has been years since I read Roe v. Wade, but I don't remember it as guaranteeing a right to abortion. As I remember it, it set a time framework within which state legislators could democratically determine how laws regarding abortion for their state should be written, within the limits of the Constitution. Once again, as I remember it, no laws preventing abortion in the first trimester were to be deemed constitutional; laws to protect the mother could be made for the second trimester; laws in the interest of the mother or of the child were OK in the third trimester. The Court did not legislate. But I don't recall hearing of many attempts by state legislatures to formulate and promulgate laws within the parameters described by Roe v. Wade.

The parameters set were seriously flawed, but the failure of most legislatures to try to pass laws controlling abortion even within those parameters leaves me skeptical that they will suddenly do so when Roe v. Wade is gone.

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

Jeremy_Loesch

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #84 on: May 04, 2022, 02:35:35 PM »
Mika Brzezinski said that overturning Roe might cause Hilary Clinton to get in the 2024 presidential race. Why am I so fortunate to live in this time?

And I've really cut down on listening to NPR lately because wh listen to that when there are Cardinals, Blues, Joe Rogan, Brene Brown podcasts to listen to? But I did this morning because the Rogan interview with Douglas Murray was finished. So I caught the morning show 1A on NPR. Talk about unhinged.  Here is what I heard....birthing person...only the mother is affected in abortion, right....if Roe is overturned we'll lose countless doctors who never learn the most basic gynecological care...

It was unbelievable. This was evidence of how vital abortion is the a segment of our population. If the leaked opinion was read, the result is that the abortion issue gets kicked back to the states. A commentator said that only the states on the coasts are doing anything to protect the healthcare of birthing persons! The states in the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain region were putting that care in jeopardy! (I clutched my pearls for her.)


I'm going to have to find more hockey podcasts I guess. (Aside from Blues podcasts, Puck Soup is my go to.)

Jeremy

Jeremy

The Yak

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #85 on: May 04, 2022, 02:46:24 PM »
It has been years since I read Roe v. Wade, but I don't remember it as guaranteeing a right to abortion. As I remember it, it set a time framework within which state legislators could democratically determine how laws regarding abortion for their state should be written, within the limits of the Constitution. Once again, as I remember it, no laws preventing abortion in the first trimester were to be deemed constitutional; laws to protect the mother could be made for the second trimester; laws in the interest of the mother or of the child were OK in the third trimester. The Court did not legislate. But I don't recall hearing of many attempts by state legislatures to formulate and promulgate laws within the parameters described by Roe v. Wade.

The parameters set were seriously flawed, but the failure of most legislatures to try to pass laws controlling abortion even within those parameters leaves me skeptical that they will suddenly do so when Roe v. Wade is gone.

Peace,
Michael

Having read some of the leaked opinion, it was precisely such formulations that made Roe v Wade legislation rather than constitutional law.  Not only is the right to abortion not in the constitution, neither is this tiered approach based on trimesters.  To create such an approach is appropriate for a legislature, but unless there is something in the constitution to do so (and there is not), not for SCOTUS.
Rev. Dr. Scott Yak imow
Professor of Theology
Concordia University - Ann Arbor

JEdwards

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #86 on: May 04, 2022, 03:11:30 PM »
Mika Brzezinski said that overturning Roe might cause Hilary Clinton to get in the 2024 presidential race. Why am I so fortunate to live in this time?

And I've really cut down on listening to NPR lately because wh listen to that when there are Cardinals, Blues, Joe Rogan, Brene Brown podcasts to listen to? But I did this morning because the Rogan interview with Douglas Murray was finished. So I caught the morning show 1A on NPR. Talk about unhinged.  Here is what I heard....birthing person...only the mother is affected in abortion, right....if Roe is overturned we'll lose countless doctors who never learn the most basic gynecological care...

It was unbelievable. This was evidence of how vital abortion is the a segment of our population. If the leaked opinion was read, the result is that the abortion issue gets kicked back to the states. A commentator said that only the states on the coasts are doing anything to protect the healthcare of birthing persons! The states in the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain region were putting that care in jeopardy! (I clutched my pearls for her.)


I'm going to have to find more hockey podcasts I guess. (Aside from Blues podcasts, Puck Soup is my go to.)

Jeremy

Jeremy
It’s only a minor point, but it is striking that amid all the hyperventilating, NPR has made several factual errors. One that comes to mind was a statement that Roe v Wade was decided “more than 50 years ago.”  Not a huge error, but the sort of mistake that might have elicited smug comments and solemn fact-checking were the shoe on the other foot.
Peace,
Jon

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13369
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #87 on: May 04, 2022, 03:12:04 PM »
Remember the old, widely scorned, and dismissed domino theory? At one time it was suggested that if one country fell to communism, the neighboring countries will likewise fall. Thus it was vital for us to intervene in Viet Nam. Or the domino of if we allow women to be ordained, then the pressure will move to the ordination of partnered homosexuals? We were told that these kinds of domino effects and fears are pure hogwash. Well, the domino theory is back. If the Supreme Court follows up with the leaked opinion and overturns Roe v. Wade, that would be just the first domino. Waiting in the wings will be the repeal of same sex marriage, availability of contraceptives, interracial marriage and who knows what. Or at least that is in opinions that I have read.  Who's paranoid now?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44438
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2022, 03:12:22 PM »
Bishop Eaton has called the American legal system "fundamentally flawed".  My assumption, then, is that it is the position of the ELCA that the American legal system is fundamentally flawed. Now, "fundamental" is roughly synonymous with "foundational".  That would suggest that any alleged "foundational right" would be one that is "fundamentally flawed".  And since the only way to correct a "fundamental flaw" is to change the foundation, I assume that the ELCA is in favor of overturning this "foundational right".   I'm really confused.  Are foundational rights fundamentally flawed or not.  And if so, why not fundamentally change them? :-\


As a good Lutheran, we recognize the sinful nature in all human beings, so all human institutions will be fundamentally flawed. The legal system has sent innocent people to jail and executed some. The legal system has let criminals go free - sometimes on procedural errors.


How did you go from our legal system to "rights"? We have a right to a fair trial. The fact that the legal system is fundamentally flawed doesn't change our right to a fair trial - it just means that our trials might not be as fair or just or unbiased as we might like.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3576
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2022, 03:27:55 PM »
Bishop Eaton has called the American legal system "fundamentally flawed".  My assumption, then, is that it is the position of the ELCA that the American legal system is fundamentally flawed. Now, "fundamental" is roughly synonymous with "foundational".  That would suggest that any alleged "foundational right" would be one that is "fundamentally flawed".  And since the only way to correct a "fundamental flaw" is to change the foundation, I assume that the ELCA is in favor of overturning this "foundational right".   I'm really confused.  Are foundational rights fundamentally flawed or not.  And if so, why not fundamentally change them? :-\

As a good Lutheran, we recognize the sinful nature in all human beings, so all human institutions will be fundamentally flawed. The legal system has sent innocent people to jail and executed some. The legal system has let criminals go free - sometimes on procedural errors.


How did you go from our legal system to "rights"? We have a right to a fair trial. The fact that the legal system is fundamentally flawed doesn't change our right to a fair trial - it just means that our trials might not be as fair or just or unbiased as we might like.
When the legal system produces the "correct" result (Roe v Wade, prosecuting racists cops or Jan 6 insurrectionists), it is the backbone of our free society.  OTOH when it returns a "bad" result (Bush v Gore, Citizens United, overturning Roe v Wade) it is a threat to our democracy.   :o

Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter