Some of the most severe critics of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that not only legalized abortion, but placed it among the unenumerated rights in the Constitution, are supporters of abortion rights.
None other than Harvard law professor and liberal legal guru Laurence Tribe, for instance, admitted in the Harvard Law Review shortly after Roe that "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
William Saletan, the Slate.com writer and harsh critic of President Bush, concedes the private files of Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, made available in 2005, "vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."
Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in a 2005 article, wrote that "the very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous."
Continued
2 comments:
I can support a ban on late term abortion, although I would like to see an exception for the life of the mother. Basically, though I feel that the government has no business being involved in abortion, and it should be left to the women involved, in consultation with their priests, ministers, or bartenders, and their doctors.
Then would you support the overturning of R v W and letting the people vote on the issue on a state by state basis if you believe the gov't (which I assume includes the SC)has no business getting involved?
Post a Comment