…

It was a fleeting happiness, reading a random article about the decrease in children born with Down’s syndrome. In a three second span of naivete, I thought to myself, “Interesting. How have they done it? Gene therapy in the womb? A new class of drug…

Works for me. Why is the gay left so terrified of having to work with voters?

Mr. Carpenter is in theory correct. Gay privacy rights need not rely upon Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood. A future Supreme Court may use the the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down as uncosntitutional abortion practices because they deprive the fetal being of the right to life, a life that is in significant ways, similarly situated to that of an infant that no one would think right to kill. The pregnant woman’s right to bodily integrity and privacy, however significant, cannot supersede that of another person’s rights so the Court, considering the opposing rights at issue, could weigh heavily in favor of the latter, more vulnerable member within the community without otherwise undermining the woman’s privacy and bodily integrity liberty interests in other areas like contraception.

But the question at issue is not whether but how Roe and Casey are undermined and that is why the gay liberal itnerest groups have every reason to concern themselves with President Bush’s Supreme Court pick. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist dissented in Casey and in Lawrence because they believe there is no general right to privacy or bodily integrity. They believe these divisive social issues can and should be handled by the legislators in each state or through popular referendums.

In their dissents, these three justices voted to uphold restrictions on abortion and sexual activitiy because they found no such right to privacy in the Constitution. If indeed, they eventually win a five-member Supreme Court majority and overturn Roe and Casey using that logic, then Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception rights for married couples), Eisenstadt v. Baird (equal contraception rights for unmarried couples), and Lawrence v. Texas (gay intimacy) would be undermined as well.

Griswold invalidated a Connecticut law that prevented married couples from obtaining contraception; Eisenstadt invalidated a Massachusetts law that prevented unmarried individuals from receiving contraception. Roe perverted both of these logical decisions, which simply point out that the state should not be in the business of telling people that the only sexual choice they have is unprotected sex, into making unprotected sex more attractive because you don’t have to deal with one of the obvious consequences.

Thanks. Last time I try to post on a Supreme Court ruling before I’m fully awake.

Also – even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, which is will not be, even with Roberts on the Court, it does not make abortion illegal. It just allows the states to determine the law in regards to abortion. I’m sure some states would still allow women to have abortions.

Lawrence did NOT rely on Roe v. Wade. Lawrence mentioned Roe as little (and as tangentially) as possible.

Lawrence’s argument relied on earlier cases such as Griswold (for the 5-4 majority – not 6-3 Clint, sorry). Mainstream legal scholars consider its reasoning sound (or acceptably close to it).

Roe also relied on Griswold, but, by most accounts Roe was very badly reasoned. Mainstream scholars are embarassed by how badly reasoned (in terms of legal craft) Roe was.

That raises the intriguing possibility that Roe could/should fall, but, perhaps abortion rights would still be preserved in some form at the federal level, based on better reasoning. But regardless: It is a mistake to claim that Lawrence and Roe somehow stand or fall together.

If a potential justice doesn’t see a right to privacy in Roe, then they’re very likely to overturn Lawrence and allow cops to go back to arresting consenting adults engaged in sexual activities in their own residences.

But why address that issue when it’s so much easier just to blame it on Solmonese?

Please replace 7-2 with 6-3 everywhere above, and 6-3 with 7-2. O’Connor supported the equal protection argument, but refused to go along with the Roe-like argument.

Obviously, this actually strengthens the point I was making — that our rights hinge on the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, just like everyone else’s do.

Actually, the two cases do not “stand or fall together”.

It’s true that a 7-2 majority struck down the law based on Griswold-style privacy arguments similar to those relied on in Roe.

However, there was a 6-3 majority (the one switching vote being Justice O’Connor) for striking down the law based on the much stronger (for gay rights) equal protection ground.

Additional flaw in your claim: Overturning Roe specifically wouldn’t affect even the 7-2 case in Lawrence, unless the Court went further — all the way to overturning Griswold, which is much less likely.

If Roe were overturned, it would likely be through an increased focus on whatever rights a fetus may acquire at some point during gestation — so it probably would be based on a balancing of rights, not on striking down the Griswold-based privacy rights completely.

Contrary to NARAL, there’s no one out there who believes passionately that abortion should be outlawed because women shouldn’t be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies. Passionate pro-lifers are motivated by the belief that the fetus is a baby. Any conceivable overturn of Roe would necessarily reflect that.

Please show me where in the Constitution that women have the right to murder. The Constitution clearly states that we have the right to life, but where does it state that women have the right to murder?

In any case, gay or straight, males have ro rights with regard to the abortion issue since your balls were castriated in 1973.

Why have laws against murder, then? If somebody kills or rapes somebody, it’s none of your business, right?

But of course it’s your business. And if it’s wrong for someone to kill an adult (just because it makes their life more convenient), it’s equally wrong to kill a child. If it’s wrong to kill a child, it’s wrong to kill a newborn baby. If it’s wrong to kill a newborn baby, it’s wrong to kill a baby as it’s coming out the birth canal. If it’s wrong to kill a baby as it’s coming out the birth canal, it’s wrong to kill a baby the day before it’s born. If it’s wrong to kill it the day before it’s born….it’s probably wrong to kill it the week or month before it’s being born. Now when does it stop being wrong, or stop being a matter for public concern?

I accept that there *is* a line in there somewhere, and I think it’s *not* all the way back at the moment of conception. I accept that a newly conceived blastocyst isn’t a person. I personally am willing to allow early-term abortions – while banning late-term or partial-birth. I concede that any such line we draw is arbitrary, and probably the wrong one. I just assert that we have got to draw it somewhere, and if we draw it at conception (or the first week or month), we will get outcomes as unjust as if we drew it at 9 months. Ultimately, it is a matter for honest debate. I reject the idea that it isn’t. If I want to live in a civil, murder-free society at all, then all killing of human life in that society (sanctioned or unsanctioned) is my business, and yours.

I put it this way. If HIV/AIDS could be cured by a transplant of an organ from an otherwise-healthy baby, would you argue for the right to kill that baby to protect your right to choose unprotected sex?