Would conservative court dare overturn Roe? Of course!
“Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger predicted Tuesday night that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that gives women abortion rights.
The noted liberal scholar said the 1973 decision has become a “trophy” that the court’s conservative bloc could overturn if a Republican president chooses a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“I absolutely believe it,” Dellinger said during a forum cosponsored by POLITICO.
“For a while I thought that one could simply chip away at a lot more and more regulations that sort of protected access (to abortions) for the most affluent women but really made it impossible for women who were vulnerable to geography, poverty (and) youth,” he added. “But now I think that, actually, it is such a symbol of a kind of jurisprudence that conservatives have set themselves in opposition to.”
I concur. I often see conjecture, from liberals and conservatives both, that legal conservatives would step back if finally give the opportunity to overturn Roe. And I always wonder: “Based on what?”
What on earth makes them think that?
The same is true of claims that if Roe were overturned, conservatives in Congress would allow states to make their own decisions regarding the legality of abortion. No, they would not. At the first opportunity, they would try to federalize that policy. Life doesn’t begin at conception in some states but not in others.
And as Politico notes, “such a decision by the Supreme Court would pour barrels of gasoline onto the now smoldering fires of the never-ending culture war.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
223 comments Add your comment
Rockerbabe
June 23rd, 2010
2:16 pm
Why is it that when it comes to “culture wars”, everyone thinks women are fair game for the throwbacks in our country? Women vote, pay taxes, own property and all of us claim the 13th amendment as protection against involuntary servitude. Letting the states decide about pregnancy and abortion would be like allowing them to decision on the question of slavery or free state and we all know what happened there!
Roe vs Wade may not be to everyone’s liking, but for women of childbearing age, it is the barrier to state abuse of women and their futures. Anyway, the states in our country really do not care about women or their children; this is just an exercise in raw power over women by those that hate the fact we are full citizen with Constitutional rights. Overturn Roe and see what happens. . .it will not be pretty for those that do.
Del
June 23rd, 2010
2:19 pm
scrappy,
Thank you, your second paragraph proved my point
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
2:21 pm
scrappy:
Since no one can determine that “exact second” of viability ………. some grave mistakes are being made ……… the killing of innocent children.
Deal with it!
Scout
June 23rd, 2010
2:22 pm
Got to run folks.
May God forgive us as a nation for what we do to our unborn ……….. a time when a mother is most a mother.
Pokey
June 23rd, 2010
2:23 pm
JB,
You are taking JPII’s words completely out of context. He never taught “better safe than sorry”, he was making a philisophical argument for life rather than theological one with the words you selectively quoted.
The Catholic Church teaches and JPII taught unequivicably that life begins with conception and abortion is intrinsically evil and thus, always wrong.
I challenge you to show me where the Catechism of the Catholic Church states otherwise.
Aquinas died more than 700 years ago. Do we know more medicine/biology today than was know 700 years ago? Have you actually read what Aquinas wrote about life, etc??? Your Pelosiesque reference to him is a joke.
Roe should be overturned because it is bad law. Even many of your favorite lib legal scholars have acknowledged as much.
neo-Carlinist
June 23rd, 2010
2:27 pm
sfd, are you actually comparing the early stages of human life to the cultivation of plant? technically, you are pro-marijuana, and I find nothing wrong with being pro-marijuana. I am also pro-tomato, pro-eggplant, pro-corn (used to make whiskey). this is just another example of people modifying language in a weak effort to assume some sort of moral authority – “we fight for the rights of women… unless they are in the very early stages of life, in which case, mother knows best…” and the same is true for the anti-abortion crowd – “…we fight for the rights of the unborn… but it’s OK to kill them after they’re born, if they are convicted of a capital crime in the circus we call court, OR they are wearing the wrong uniform in a war…” I’m not chiming in on either side, in fact, I think both sides are hypocrites. the language is political and legal in nature, say no more.
scrappy
June 23rd, 2010
2:30 pm
Del – only if your point was that these laws are being enacted with the sole purpose of taking too long, thereby effectively making abortions illegal. A way to make them illegal, without actually making them illegal.
Like, you are able to get an abortion (most) up to 12 weeks, but first to comply with all of these laws it will take you 15 weeks, oops, sorry, you missed your chance.
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:36 pm
One other thing:
Overturn Roe and see what happens. . .it will not be pretty for those that do.
Yep. Read this and weep.
http://pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm
stands for decibels
June 23rd, 2010
2:39 pm
sfd, are you actually comparing the early stages of human life to the cultivation of plant?
Wha? huh?
no, but if one were pro-heavy-marijuana-use I could see why one might think that.
Seriously, I think I made it pretty clear I was speaking of terminology, and how everyone attempts to use it to political advantage. People who want to overturn Roe and make criminalizing first trimester abortion a possibility again, obviously, don’t want to be called “pro-criminalization”, they want to be given the warm, soft, puppy-dog cuddly label of “pro-life.”
President Hussein
June 23rd, 2010
2:43 pm
Petraeus to replace McChrystal
So let me get this straight. Barry who voted against the Iraqi “surge” and railed against GWB for it is now going to pick the general who developed the “surge” to lead his own “surge” in Afganistan? You can’t make this stuff up!!!
I think Barry’s defense if this doesn’t work out will be: See, I told you the surge won’t work!
LMAO
lmno
June 23rd, 2010
2:44 pm
It seems as though this piece assumes that the next SCOTUS will be appointed by a Republican POTUS. That seems to be somewhat a stretch.
Not impossible, but no where close to certain. Life is uncertain. Any of the right sided justices could be through any day just like the left.
pat
June 23rd, 2010
3:07 pm
Jay you are incorrect on the when the Catholic Church considers the begining of human life. From the Cathecism:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
Here’s the link.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
St. Thomas Aquinas was a hell of a theologian, but his postulations on ensoulment are not considered dogma. They were his own thoughts not the thoughts of the church….
Pokey
June 23rd, 2010
3:28 pm
@Pat,
JB won’t let facts get in the way of his blog posts. His arguments are routinely specious. He counts on his readers to be fevered leftist, kool-aid drinking, kiss-up idealogues and/or folks ill-informed/equipped to debate him.
Jay
June 23rd, 2010
3:44 pm
Pat, the church’s statement on human life, Donum Vitae, said in 1987 that “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature” about when life begins, but it does expressly rule out abortion.
It is also true, as I stated, that the church’s view has changed from time to time. Pope Gregory XII, for example, ruled that abortions in the first 40 days of pregnancy were allowable. Go look it up.
Jay
June 23rd, 2010
3:45 pm
And Pokey, bring what you got.
Pokey
June 23rd, 2010
10:31 pm
As I has written and you have repeatedly proven, you are the master of the specious argument. I have provided many examples(military brass’ opinion on DA,DT is one) of such during my occasional visits to your blog. Just because you don’t like what I write doesn’t make it true.
Try this one on for size JB…
CCC 2271…”Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has NOT changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
I’ll also refer you the first century document The Didache.
Would you like me to continue??
Have you read Donum Vitae JB??? Or what the CCC says about life and abortion? I suspect you enthusiatically get your selective info from pro-abortion “Catholic” groups, perhaps even a old press release from Pelosi’s office, without checking context yourself.
Awww JB, I got plenty. You have SPECIOUS arguments.
Pokey
June 24th, 2010
2:43 pm
“As I has written…”??? Geeez…there needs to be a edit feature on this blog!
Where are you, JB???? I am waiting for you “to bring what you got.” It’s amusing when you talk tough on your blog!
Confucious
June 24th, 2010
3:14 pm
Man who wait seven hours to “bring what he got”, get bupkis back on Internet.
Jay
June 24th, 2010
3:58 pm
I’m right here.
As somebody used to say, “whatcha got, Loran?”
Jay
June 24th, 2010
4:34 pm
Pokey, the church may CLAIM its teachings have never changed.
History — well-documented history — says otherwise. Go look up Gregory and what he had to say on the matter. Look up the Apostolic Constitutions and see what they have to say.
Pokey
June 24th, 2010
11:23 pm
JB,
You continue you affirm my assertion that you are a master of the specious argument. Many of your blog posts are just that. This is a perfect example. Clearly you are relying on “facts” put forth by liberals and so-called “Catholics” on various sites to justify their support for abortion and perhaps assuage their consciencea, without doing your own research.
The authorship of the Apostolic Constitutions have never been established. The Church has never considered them as more than historical documents and has never viewed them as having Apostolic authority. Never.
Abortion is addessed one place in the Apostolic Constitution, specifically in 7:3, “Thou shalt not slay the child causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped and received his soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged as being unjustly destroyed.” Even if one gives the ACs the same authority you allege, to claim that quote leaves wiggle room for abortion is a strain, legalistic interpretation at best.
You have not read the Apostolic Constitutions, you have not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor have you read Donum Vitae. You haven’t read any of them. None. Clearly. The CCC’s claim above is accurate and correct.
Do research apart from lib blogs and web sites with a pro-abortion agenda and remember…
A quote out of context or without context, is a pretext and it is the main ingredient of a specious argument made by a rabid idealogue and lazy blogger/journalist more eager to buttress his fragile assertions than to learn the truth.
Again, all you “got” is specious arguments.
Sorry JB.
Jay
June 24th, 2010
11:28 pm
Pokey, the truth remains. The church’s current position that abortion from the time of conception is murder has NOT been consistent. The history on that point is clear.
Period.
I mean no offense by it. It is merely the truth, for better or worse. The Apostolic Constitutions confirm it, Pope Gregory confirms it, St. Thomas confirms it.
You’re not trying to argue with me. You’re trying to argue with them. Good luck with that.
You do care about the truth, right?
Pokey
June 25th, 2010
10:43 am
I am arguing with history???
Show me where/when the Church has ever held that the Apostolic Constitutions reflect church dogma??? Where?? Nobody knows who even wrote them. Show me an AC and I’ll show you dozens of early chruch figures by name and what they wrote re: abortion. Even if it were an authoritative document, to say that one the one phrase that addresses the subject, proves that the Church permitted some abortions is a hopeful legalistic stretch.
Thomas Aquinas was a theologian still held in great regard. As Pat he never nor did he ever claim to speak for the Church. No theologian does because they don’t. They are church intelectuals, if you will. There have been Catholic theologians in the past 50 years that have urged changing the Church’s positions on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and a whole host of subjects. Do these theologians reflect the authentic teaching of the Church??
Perhaps you don’ understand how the Church works? I concede that may part of the case here. More likely, I think you haven’t investigated these subjects much beyond gleaning quotes from pro-abortion web sites and you’re looking desperately for anything that remotely appears to support your premise.