New at Reason

November 15, 2006

Jacob Sullum surveys the post-election state of the abortion wars.

Comments

|11.15.06 @ 8:21AM|#

I doubt the Supreme Court is going to stop "micromanaging" state abortion laws when 66% of the people are against overturning Roe.

|11.15.06 @ 9:56AM|#

As a pro-choice libertarian who does not believe that a fetus is a person, therefore not protected by the constitution the same way as the mother, I have always been in a state of ambivalence over Roe. Did the Supreme Court really pick that decision out of thin air? Do the sates really have the authority to abolish all abortion rights if (big if) the fetus is not a person? Can someone who is pro-choice support the overturn of Roe? What are some of the unintended consequences of Roe to begin with? Anyone care to help?

Dan T.|11.15.06 @ 10:09AM|#

I can't help but think abortion is a dead issue in American politics. At this point, the general policies are not likely to change much in either direction.

|11.15.06 @ 10:22AM|#

Fetus not a person?

|11.15.06 @ 10:47AM|#

steveintheknow:
Roe was based on "substantive due process" which, as many lawyers and historians know, isn't based on objective factors and can be criticized as judge-made law (or reasoned judgment). On the other side, ROE was a seemingly natural outgrowth of the expansion of personal liberty in the Griswold, Loving and related cases. When decided, Roe was part legal common sense and part Constitutional heresy (stratified, like the abortion issue!). Casey v. Planned Parenthood, decided in 1992, reaffirmed the Roe precedent and, more importantly, attempted to make a reasoned judicial judgment out of a somewhat political issue. If the court had been more liberal at the time, perhaps a different tact would have been taken.
Regardless, a pro-choice person can favor overturning Roe, but it is rare because the practical ramifications negate the philosophical purity in such a position. Most importantly, the Constitution is silent on abortion and relies on the various elasticities of the document to keep it modern. I'm sure better informed Reasonoids can give more pedantic detail. I'm just a level 2 pedant.

|11.15.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Roe v. Wade was and is bad law. To me, this is clearly a states rights issue. That said, be careful what you wish for, religious right. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned the number of liberal democrats elected to state legislatures and governorships is likely to increase dramatically, effectively reinstating Roe in most jurisdictions and decreasing the religious rights power in all.

|11.15.06 @ 11:47AM|#

Kodos (or was it Kang?) got it right.

|11.16.06 @ 5:07PM|#

Abortions for all.
[crowd boos]

Very well, no abortions for anyone.
[crowd boos]

Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]