Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.…
Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.
Roe was sloppily written, leaving the door open for this current debacle. It was the late term, anytime, last minute, partial birth, “make the baby comfortable” mess that got us here. Personally, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to vote on the issue and now I will, so will everyone else. My state will vote to have abortions whenever, however and wherever, and I will have to live with that because I’m not moving.
That said, I too wasn’t happy with how far Thomas went in his opinion, suggesting contraception and same sex marriage also be revisited, particularly since the parties involved all have voices, and because it muddied the water. Now everyone is setting their hair on fire and both parties are using it to demonize the other. However, one could argue Thomas is saying voters should have had the opportunity to have a say. (We all voted on legalIzing marijuana. Can’t we handle the big stuff?) All of these controversial issues usually progress towards sensible ends.
Why not let the Constitution work the way it’s supposed to. Issues not specifically spelled out in the document are voted on by the states. Had our elected leaders and media responsibly reported on why we are here and how we move forward in a civilized way, we’d all be better off. Everyone needs to try harder to find common ground and lump some of the things they don’t like.
I think the issue from the side of those who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc, makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Their side won decisively when the supreme court “legislated from the bench”. The other side similarly lost decisively. Therefore, even though one might agree that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the past, by making things “right” again, if that person is in the former category they have to deal with the rollback of what was thought to be a definitive win. Conversely, for the latter category it’s a universal win, both in terms of their opinion on those rights and the integrity of our institutions. It’s never easy to stand up for the integrity of institutions if the result of that is losing a “right” that you support. Therefore I think it’s very important for those who are for abortion and these other issues, but admit Roe was wrongly decided, to be given all the respect for standing by their principles even when it doesn’t benefit their “side”.
Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.
Roe was sloppily written, leaving the door open for this current debacle. It was the late term, anytime, last minute, partial birth, “make the baby comfortable” mess that got us here. Personally, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to vote on the issue and now I will, so will everyone else. My state will vote to have abortions whenever, however and wherever, and I will have to live with that because I’m not moving.
That said, I too wasn’t happy with how far Thomas went in his opinion, suggesting contraception and same sex marriage also be revisited, particularly since the parties involved all have voices, and because it muddied the water. Now everyone is setting their hair on fire and both parties are using it to demonize the other. However, one could argue Thomas is saying voters should have had the opportunity to have a say. (We all voted on legalIzing marijuana. Can’t we handle the big stuff?) All of these controversial issues usually progress towards sensible ends.
Why not let the Constitution work the way it’s supposed to. Issues not specifically spelled out in the document are voted on by the states. Had our elected leaders and media responsibly reported on why we are here and how we move forward in a civilized way, we’d all be better off. Everyone needs to try harder to find common ground and lump some of the things they don’t like.
I think the issue from the side of those who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc, makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Their side won decisively when the supreme court “legislated from the bench”. The other side similarly lost decisively. Therefore, even though one might agree that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the past, by making things “right” again, if that person is in the former category they have to deal with the rollback of what was thought to be a definitive win. Conversely, for the latter category it’s a universal win, both in terms of their opinion on those rights and the integrity of our institutions. It’s never easy to stand up for the integrity of institutions if the result of that is losing a “right” that you support. Therefore I think it’s very important for those who are for abortion and these other issues, but admit Roe was wrongly decided, to be given all the respect for standing by their principles even when it doesn’t benefit their “side”.