Thoughts on “Roe v. Wade”

Liberals like to throw around words like “litmus test” and “abortion” as hot terms when it comes to the Supreme Court. Actually, conservatives do too.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today (which is something I tend to avoid but for some reason, I stayed tuned in when I turned my car on and he was on the station I listen to). I’ve found that if you can get past Rush’s ego, he often times has good things to say. I also don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but today he was on point.

Let me spin in my own thoughts here.

The mantra of the Conservative movement for years has been overturning Roe v. Wade. I agree with them that it was bad law. It was bad law because, as Justice Blackmun worded the decision, Roe was based on “the right to privacy” which is nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, he uses the word “penumbra”, meaning shadow or “in the shadow” quite a bit to derive a “right to privacy” from the Constitution. That term continues to be used by activist judges who believe in a “living Constitution”, one that changes with the times. It is a term used to justify reading into the Constitution something that IS NOT THERE.

I like the right to privacy, but it is not Constitutional!

Roe was decided as law based on a penumbra of what was in the Constitution, not what was in the Constitution. Therefore, it is bad law.

The Constitution provides a means to change what is in the Constitution. It’s called the Amendment process. It is spelled out in great detail in Article V. It is the ONLY prescribed method for changing the Constitution. A “penumbra” is not legitimate. It’s there or it is not. Period. If it is not and the government wants it there, then amend the Constitution in accordance with Constitutional law.

I’m way off point here, though.

With my position on Roe established, let me say that the Conservatives who look at judicial appointments through the lenses of overturning Roe v. Wade are decieving themselves. While Roe essentially legalized abortion, it also gave the States domain over how it is handled.

If Roe ever were to be overturned, that would not eradicate abortion, as Conservatives and pro-life groups believe. It would simply revert the decision over legalizing abortion back to the states (where, I might add, it should be anyway because Roe is bad law - not on the merits, but on the basis and precedent). While undoubtedly, some states would prohibit abortion, other states would maintain it’s legality. My guess is most states would protect it’s legality.

All of this talk about Roe v. Wade is a bad precedent to be evaluating judiciary on. I am more concerned, on a judicial level, about Kelo v New London being overturned than I am about Roe v Wade. Kelo, if you recall, is the recent Eminent Domain decision by the Supreme Court which expands the requirements for the seizure of property for government use to include the right of the government to seize property for economic purposes as well.

I’m more concerned about that, than Roe v Wade.

Added: Welcome, Outside the Beltway readers.

Tagged as: law, politics, scotus, supreme_court