Comment Re:Pathetic attempt to distraction heats up (Score 5, Informative) 343
that is a bunch of garbage. even ruth ginsburg said that roe v wade was not about privacy. then if you actually go and read the leaked paper it specify mention and why they are not affected and are different from this case. Your post is nothing but a cut/paste from a group that makes money off of abortion and is lying about what was in the decision in order to protect their money flow.
Go back and read Roe v Wade, it's copy pasted straight from Roe v Wade, primary sources and what not. - 77 This right of -=PRIVACY=-, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. - 78 On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of -=PRIVACY=- also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The -=PRIVACY=- right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of -=PRIVACY=- previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) (sterilization). - - 79 We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal -=PRIVACY=- includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. - - 82 Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of -=PRIVACY=- , however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach. - - I have read the leaked draft. I'm not convinced. I found their reasoning to be flimsy at best, self-serving and dishonest at it's worst. Which passages did you find most compelling? Why?
