Rethinking Roe v. Wade

Things have been quiet here on the blog, but I have recently added a honkin-big study on the main site: A Fuzzy Workaround for Roe v. Wade. If you are pro life, it could be the most important article you read this year, or even decade. It outlines a legal strategy for restricting abortion which doesn’t require overturning the core logic of Roe vs. Wade! In other words, we need not wait until the Republican Party successfully elects five conservative presidents in a row in order to do something about a practice which has a disturbing resemblance to genocide. We might get a useful victory through the existing court.

I say “could” and “might” as I am not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV. Read the article yourself and ponder the implications. Come back here and comment or use the Disqus comments on the article page proper. If you are a lawyer, I would absolutely love to hear your opinion, either via comment or email.

Let’s save some lives — soon.

 

One Response to Rethinking Roe v. Wade

  1. Michael Bindner says:

    Roe is settled law. The last two GOP appointees on the Court refused to overturn it when given the chance in the Partial Birth Abortion Act case, using the Commerce Clause instead. They could have easily used the Fourteenth Amendment’s enforcement clause as giving Congress the right to enforce said Amendment, especially on the issue of the start of life. Doing that would forever foreclose state action on this issue – which would be a good thing as we don’t need abortion states and non-abortion states anymore than we needed slave and free states. The issue that must also be created is the impact on any “personhood” legislation on how we deal with miscarriages. Should they be investigated by legal authorities? If they occur after personhood, they would have to be and tort relief would be available for the loss of the child, making insurance companies very nervous in issuing malpractice insurance for anyone seeing patients at that stage of pregnancy. Equal protection and law do not like fuzzy concepts. Rules tend to be precise. Miscarriages tend to occur until the 12th week, so the 13th week would seem to be the standard the Congress might agree on, save of course enacting an exemption for the life and health of the mother – with the health being defined as terminating any pregnancy that is doomed to fail as soon as possible to reduce medical risk. That would exclude Downs Syndrome children from abortion – but such a standard would not really change the abortion statistics that much, since most terminations occur during the first trimester (90%).

    A better way to fight abortion is to make raising a child affordable by giving a much larger citizen or tax subsidy for each child – on the order of $1000 per month per child with funding from both the state and federal sides. That might just stop more than 70% of abortions (along with making sure young people can afford to keep their kids, get married and still finish college.

Leave a reply