Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right (like bearing arms) and many Supreme Court decisions have been overturned in the past, so I’m not quite as confident as you seem to be that American women will always maintain control of their reproductive rights.
It was unsettled by the same means that Roe became settled: the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. The Court has consistently maintained that the right to privacy exists in spite of its absence from the verbiage of the Constitution, and since Roe was decided on that basis it will not be overturned. Were the right to privacy unseated we would be in deep and utter shit, and the Court knows that. So do the Republicans. They know that if by some incredible miracle they manage to get Roe overturned by decision or statute that they’re done as a party for years to come.
This is no more or less than an attempt to pander to a group of people that traditionally vote Republican. Throwing them a bone does not constitute an attempt to give them what they want.
Well, abortion is a constitutionally protected right by virtue of the Court’s decisions; what you mean, I think, is the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the actual language of the Constitution the way “bear arms” does.
Yet for many years some of the same folks argued with equal vigor that abortion WAS a constitutionally protected right for people, and that bearing arms was a collective right of some kind, meaningless when applied to an individual person. [sup]*[/sup]
So, amazingly, the language in the Constitution isn’t really the best barometer of what the document says.
- I only use the past tense here because, in the wake of DC v. Heller, the “collective rights” argument has been disposed of; abortion is still alive and kicking. Ironically enough.
The Rehnquist Court didn’t get a suitable test case to overturn it; not that they would have, necessarily, but the opportunity wasn’t there. Until a state legislature passes a statute explicitly restricting non-late-term abortion, the opportunity won’t be there. It did weaken Roe a bit with the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, though.
I think what he meant, and it is a fair statement, that when you include such a broad term like “health” as an exemption to an abortion law, then what does that mean?
Surely a woman giving birth could possibily affect her health, no? So that would turn the law on its head. Let try this:
-
Every abortion is punishable by 10 years in prison unless the woman’s health is in danger.
-
Childbirth presents a danger to a woman’s health.
-
Therefore every woman is exempt from the law and may have an abortion.
So, who would the law apply to?
I think McCain makes a good point, actually. I’m not trying to argue pro vs. con of legal abortion, but if you put such a broad word in the exceptions, it makes the law ridiculous…
"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”
The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Constitution. The right to have an abortion is **not **clearly stated in the Constitution. …rather, it is subject to INTERPRETATION by the Scotus. It has been interpreted one way by Roe v Wade, however, if that decision is overturned, as John McCain apparently thinks it should be, then that “right” could go away.
I think that Roe v Wade is an issue this year only as a last-ditch effort to get the fundamentalist base to come out and vote.
Frankly, the way the states look right now, even if McCain wins the presidency he won’t have the authority to push an anti-abortion judge past Congress; he’s not likely to control the Senate, no matter how the presidential race goes. It’s getting to the point where if the electoral map gets much bluer, we could be thinking about a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. That’s not the proper environment for pushing a Republican anti-abortion agenda.
He’s just trying to energize the base. Unfortunately for him he’s also energizing the opposition.
It sounds like a good point until you consider that almost every statute every written is at least as vague. That’s what courts are for.
All rights are subject to interpretation by SCOTUS. The right to bear arms is no more solidly protected than abortion rights; indeed, SCOTUS and lower courts have generally upheld more restrictions on gun ownership than on abortion.
Build a wall to keep them out! :mad:
Or better yet, build a wall of babies to keep the Mexicans out! 
Incidentally, could anyone point me to a YouTube clip of McCain saying this? I know it’s on record somewhere, since I’ve seen snippets of it as part of longer videos on McCain, but I’d like something without all the extraneous matter.
This, frankly, sounds like the same kind of frantic hand wringing I heard before GW was elected. He was going to overturn RvW AND make it illegal to have an abortion in the US (two different things), make flag burning a capital offense, force prayer in schools, imprison those who would teach the vile science of Evolution, etc etc, blah blah blah.
I note that, while he did a lot of things, he didn’t do most of the things people were worried he’d do before 2000. This seems rather in line with that from my perspective…just another reason for people who had no intention of ever voting for McCain to convince themselves that the world would end if McCain gets elected…
-XT
It wasn’t on television, it was, apparently, an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. He’s been asked about it often, including this from Meet the Press:
"Q: In 1999, you said, “In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”
A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn. "
Yeah. We were all terrified that he’d be a dunce at foreign policy but the economy at home would be just fine. Good times.
Who’s ‘we’? I don’t remember anyone being particularly concerned about his foreign policy creds because I don’t remember many being worried ABOUT foreign issues during his run. He ran on a domestic policy stance…and that was (from my own memory) where most of the frantic hand wringing came from. All that stuff he was GOING to do…but never really even tried to.
And as it turned out, all that foreign stuff WAS kind of important after all…and none of that domestic stuff ever happened.
-XT
Not really a fair comparison. Bowers never got traction with the Court itself. A few years after it was decided on a 5-4 decision, Powell (then retired), one of the majority, essentially repudiated his vote. There is stare decisis and stare decisis, and while Bowers was certainly the law of the land, it didn’t carry with it the degree of attachment both within and outside the legal community that Roe does.
Seen the Dow recently?
Why yes, I think I read something about it somewhere. What is your point exactly? Are you saying the current problems are because Bush DIDN’T get RvW overturned? Or perhaps because he didn’t get prayer in school or the flag burning thingy implemented?
Or was this just some odd digression on your part that has nothing to do with the question of RvW?
-XT
Indeed. MSNBC aired a very hard-hitting ad targeted at Palin (who takes the hard-core anti-choice position with no exceptions other than the physical survival of the mother).