# Why do people want abortion decided at the state level? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2008, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517 "2008-10-11T21:43:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/21 "2008-10-13T13:43:30Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The thing is, there are arguably good grounds for protecting the right to abortion on a federal level, but I don’t think Roe did a particularly good job of expressing them. I’d personally rather see abortion grounded in a federally recognized and protected right to self defense, for one. Fair enough, but my point is that we make it up as we go along. Anything not explicitly mentioned in the original language is a change, moderation or extension of the original document; ones made to ensure a universal adherence to the new law. Does it really matter what legal precedent is used to justify a civil liberty? Would the 13th amendment have been more palatable if it was based on a loophole in the property law rather than the result of social progress? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/22 "2008-10-13T14:07:01Z")
The Thirteenth Amendment didn’t have to be based on anything, because it was an amendment. Now, if you want to support an amendment enshrining a federal right to an abortion, that would be different. But if you are trying to find an abortion right in the existing constitution, damn right it should be well grounded. Because then it is much harder to remove, and also it leads to fewer poor follow up decisions based on the precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/23 "2008-10-13T14:28:36Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The Thirteenth Amendment didn’t have to be based on anything, because it was an amendment. > > Now, if you want to support an amendment enshrining a federal right to an abortion, that would be different. But if you are trying to find an abortion right in the existing constitution, damn right it should be well grounded. Because then it is much harder to remove, and also it leads to fewer poor follow up decisions based on the precedent. That’s exactly right. When **Bricker** says that it’s poor legal reasoning, that means that not only is Roe bad for pro-lifers, ultimately, it’s bad for pro-choicers, too. It results in people making voting decisions based solely on potential SCOTUS appointees, and how they might rule on one shaky issue. How can that be good for the country as a whole? But generally speaking, I disagree with Acid Lamp’s opinion that “States’ rights” is an antiquated idea. I think it’s actually a rather brilliant way of managing such a large and diverse country as we have. I think that keeping laws decided at the most localized possible level is generally a good idea, because then it will tend to most closely represent the true will of the people. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/24 "2008-10-13T14:30:00Z")
But don’t conservatives support federal bans on medical marijuana, flag burning, and gay marraige? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/25 "2008-10-13T14:35:35Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But don’t conservatives support federal bans on medical marijuana, flag burning, and gay marraige? Yes, which I personally don’t agree with. But for the most part, what conservatives push for are amendments to the constitution dealing with these issues, which as **villa** points out, is different from finding justification for them within the existing Constitution. An amendment doesn’t have to be based on anything that’s already there. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/26 "2008-10-13T14:36:17Z")
**Sqweels** , Flag burning is a bit different - that is a claim that a particular activity is not federally protected, and the states should be free to criminalize it. They are absolutely, clearly, obviously, 100% wrong on that, but it fits in logically with the “leave abortion to the states” brigade. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/27 "2008-10-13T15:44:29Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Women couldn’t vote until 1920, and the _original_ constitution said nothing about it; ought we rescind sufferage since it was not originally enumerated? We could rescind an amendment as easily as pass one. The reasoning for wanting abortion decided at the state level has been explained above. It is a tactic used by people who cannot make a compelling logical or ethical argument without resorting to religion, so they fall back into legal minutae. And the Constitution was changed in the 20’s. The 19th Amendment addressed it so no it would be silly to rescind an Amendment because it was not originally in the Constitution. That’s what amendments are for after all. Abortion has no Amendment. It’s allot easier to rescind an decision than an amendment btw. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/28 "2008-10-13T16:16:18Z")
> [@Saen](#): > > And the Constitution was changed in the 20’s. The 19th Amendment addressed it so no it would be silly to rescind an Amendment because it was not originally in the Constitution. That’s what amendments are for after all. Abortion has no Amendment. It’s allot easier to rescind an decision than an amendment btw. I begged begged begged people to read the GD (and I do not mean Great Debates) Constitution before wading in with free-floating opinions of what is or might be or ought to be “constitutional” and wouldn’t you know it that the very next post would be along the lines of “Civil rights have changed and expanded over the years,” as though women’s suffrage were enacted by some gradual “expansion” of “rights,” rather than through an entirely-orthodox amendment, enacted by the procedures the Constitution explicitly sets forth for amending the Constitution. Why won’t people just read the damn thing? It really isn’t that long. I would decry the view among those (the majority, apparently) who think “constitutional” means “I agree with that” and “unconstitutional” means “that blows,” or that the Supreme Court is a debating society about which policies are good or how quickly “civil rights” should evolve or “expand,” but of course, there are plenty of nitwits wearing black robes who also believe that that is their role, so I can hardly blame the masses. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/29 "2008-10-13T20:12:35Z")
Ever since the 1930s, people who wanted radical changes in government authority have looked to the Supreme Court rather than trying to enact constitutional amendments. It sucks: it politicizes the SC, it makes for bad law, it undermines congressional authority, it’s an abuse of how the system is supposed to work… and we’re stuck with it. Despite occasional efforts to restore “original intent” and “strict constructionism”, the fact is that we’ve gone so far down the slippery slope that half our laws would be unconstitutional if we adopted that standard. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/30 "2008-10-14T06:02:10Z")
States’ Rights went out the window in the Civil War. I really think we should admit that the USA does not respect the right of a “state” to secede, that “states” do not have citizens but residents, & that therefore this is, really, one state by any literal definition. And we should have a consistent set of laws. Otherwise, we get “race to the bottom” lawmaking, as states compete to be bigger dicks (Delaware won, by the way). Note that when the “strict constructionist conservative” side want to change something, they do it too, through silly (& not at all conservative) attempts like the anti-flag-burning amendment or the Human Life Amendment. Is this really better because they’re playing by the rules? Well, yeah, maybe–if only because the process will stop the loonier ideas. But it seems like everybody wants to fiddle with America & its law, because _we live in America._ Using “State’s Rights” to fiddle with local laws is a consolation prize. Look, I like some aspects of state autonomy. Laboratory of democracy & all that. But when it comes to basic human rights, I think we need consistent principles. I have come to think _Roe_ was a better decision than it’s given credit for, because it enshrined consistency; & _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ was a poorer decision, because it made a sop to State’s Rights. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517/31 "2008-10-14T21:47:06Z")
“States rights” being designated some antiquated notion is silly. First, as has been noted, it’s helpful to define what this actually means. “States rights” for me simply means that the states get to decide what rights deserve the protection of law, except to the extent that they run afoul of something explicitly protected by the Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments make clear that states rights are not some quaint notion. It’s the law of the land. If a state decides that the unborn deserve the protection of the law, the ninth amendment ensures that a higher court won’t (shouldn’t) reject that notion because this right isn’t specifically enumerated. The tenth amendment is clearer still: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Federal courts don’t get to “discover” rights, because that power has not been delegated to them. Roe v. Wade supporters might argue that the court did no such thing, that the right was right there. After several readings, I still can’t find the “third trimester” clause of the U.S. Constitution, however. The U.S. Constitution is absolutely silent on abortion rights, as a plain reading makes clear. Again, how someone can hand wave away “states rights” when the Constitution explicitly protects the states’ right to exercise any power its constituencies permit, so long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution. Call this a “power” or a “right” or whatever semantical distinction pleases you. But it’s right there in black and white, like it or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-want-abortion-decided-at-the-state-level/467517.md?page=1)