ScAlito In The House

November 14, 2005 2:38 PM

Alito documents show he is firmly against abortion.[news filter] So we all kind of new this to be true. But now there are documents showing it. From the Reagan Library of all places. This story also sheds a little light on the topic.

"Of course he's against abortion," his mother said,

posted by stilgar (61 comments total)

I imagine then (I had seen this) that the noise about caring for precedent is a smokescreen. I have always believed that if the president wants him then he stands for those things I do not believe in. Best guess: if he gets the job he will go along with others not to overturn a precedent but rather will keep adding various constraints upon the law to make it increasingly difficult for a woman to exercise a free choice.
posted by Postroad at 2:43 PM on November 14, 2005

Of course he's against abortion.

So was Meyers, so is Roberts.

Big "DUH.." all around. Did you expect any less?
posted by Balisong at 2:45 PM on November 14, 2005

Well not explicitly no...

That said I do think this is a bit of a smoking gun on this issue for Alito. Now the question I have is whether this issue actually has any real political ammunition any more.
posted by aaronscool at 2:48 PM on November 14, 2005

Is there a secret monster.com for anti-abortionist judges?
posted by eatitlive at 2:51 PM on November 14, 2005

So?

The neat thing about judges is that they rule based on what the law is, not what their personal predilections are. There have been numerous judges who are personally opposed to abortion but who ruled on various legal grounds to uphold Roe v. Wade. Personal beliefs do not reflect on the analysis of Roe v. Wade. But this principle cuts both ways. In case you didn't know: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is in favor of abortion, has criticized Roe v. Wade as being a bad opinion!

Judges personal feelings are not the basis for judgments. The law is.

The fixation on Roe v. Wade as the bellwether of the law is a travesty.
posted by dios at 2:57 PM on November 14, 2005

Is there a secret monster.com for anti-abortionist judges?

Yes. It's called the Federalist Society.
posted by mullingitover at 2:58 PM on November 14, 2005

" 'Of course he's against abortion,' his mother said."

Ah, but is his mother against abortion?

-----
"The neat thing about judges is that they rule based on what the law is, not what their personal predilections are."
- dios
Agreed. Some politicians too. Who was that guy who just got elected that said he opposed the death penalty because he was a Catholic, but would enforce it 'cause it was the law?
*goes off to feed brain more coffee*
posted by Smedleyman at 3:04 PM on November 14, 2005

Everyone is against abortion. This woman is the only person I can think of who really, really likes it.

I want to get an abortion, but my boyfriend and I are having trouble conceiving.

All the rest of you closet Aliotos, I question your commitment.
posted by jfuller at 3:04 PM on November 14, 2005

All the rest of you closet Aliotos, I question your commitment.

I have abortions all the time just to keep my arm strength up during the offseason.
posted by wakko at 3:07 PM on November 14, 2005

i left the post deliberately vauge...as the documents only show he is against abortion...not the right to choose. however i think a thinking person would thus conclude his views on choice.
posted by stilgar at 3:15 PM on November 14, 2005

Alito is so against abortion that he's never had one, nosiree, not even one.
posted by telstar at 3:15 PM on November 14, 2005

Furthermore, the reference to Alito as "Scalito" is completely wrong. Scalia is a rigid textualist with a rigid and uncompromising personality. Alito is more a proceduralist and believes more in comity. The only thing apt about the moniker is that there names share some of the same letters.

As for his Casey opinion, which some people seem to think was so crazy: when the case was before the Court, Kennedy flipped when the case was in conference from one opinion to another. Had Kennedy stayed with the side he initially was on, the Supreme Court would have agreed with Alito's dissent and overturned the Court of Appeals in Casey. As it were, it was one vote that changed and created that hard-to-decipher plurality. But he certainly wasn't out in lala land. His opinions on abortion law seems fairly palatable to all but rigid Roe v. Wade supporters (which I distinguish from rigid choice supporters).

Alito is a smart judge with a good demeanor. He seems extremely respectful of his role as a judge and really looks like he respects stare decisis and clause-bound interpretivism. (Of course, on the Supreme Court, stare decisis shouldn't matter like it does on the Court of Appeals).
posted by dios at 3:19 PM on November 14, 2005

"we all kind of new this to be true"

Come on, people, please proofread your submissions.
posted by sindark at 3:24 PM on November 14, 2005

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Nov 14, 2005 — Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito boasted about his work arguing that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" while trying to get a job in the Reagan administration as a deputy assistant attorney general, according to documents released Monday.

He didn't say that he was personally against abortion, like every politician, he said that he didn't believe it was constitutional.

Did you even read the article, Dios?
posted by delmoi at 3:24 PM on November 14, 2005

A Bush appointee being against abortion? What are the odds?
posted by fenriq at 3:25 PM on November 14, 2005

Alito is a smart judge with a good demeanor. He seems extremely respectful of his role as a judge and really looks like he respects stare decisis and clause-bound interpretivism. (Of course, on the Supreme Court, stare decisis shouldn't matter like it does on the Court of Appeals).

I agree. It makes no sense for the Supreme Court. Segregation was "settled law" at one point as well...
posted by delmoi at 3:26 PM on November 14, 2005

I never could understand why Christians and/or Republicans are so adamant about abortion, yet they love war so much.

Until I looked at the demographics on who is having the most abortions. And it's not low income minorities.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:28 PM on November 14, 2005

delmoi, what he said is true: the Constituion doesn't not protect a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade does (and to be technical, Roe v. Wade doesn't support a right to abortion, but supports a right to some undefinied right to privacy that "whatever it means" protects the right of choice to terminate a pregnancy. He doesn't say that the Constitution forbids abortion. He doesn't say that the Constitution cannot support the line of privacy cases which might permit the protection of choice. He doesn't say that there can or can't be limitations on the extent to which the act of abortion can be considered just an act of privacy and the extent to which is could be regulated.

In other words, the jurisprudence surrounding abortion is extremely nuanced. Judges have to navigate it based on all manner of precedent. Personal statements and belief are not the basis for opinions; the law is.

If I was a judge, I could very easily say, as some famous judges have "I don't see a right to privacy in the Constitution" but nevertheless rule on some cases to protect things based on existing precedents and provisions of law.

Hell, even the opinion of Roe v. Wade itself said that the right to privacy wasn't in the Constitution! So, if you want to be technical, Alito's comment that he doesn't think there is a right to abortion in the Constitution is consistent with the holding in Roe!
posted by dios at 3:34 PM on November 14, 2005

Real quick.

The Majority Opinion in Roe states:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy.

It never says there is a right to abortion in Roe because surely there isn't. What the Court said in that case was that,

"This right to privacy [wherever it be found] is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

So, the famed majority opinion in Roe never said there was a right to abortion, admitted that the right to privacy was not explicit in the constitution, but found that certain guarantees indicate a general right to privacy that includes a decision to terminate pregnancy. The idea of a "right to abortion" doesn't exist even in the Roe opinion, and certainly it doesn't, because Court's since then have placed all kinds of limitations on it. Thus, even the Roe opinion never says there is a right to abortion in the Constitution.

I say this to make this clear: Alito's statement is consistent with Roe v. Wade, so even if you want to argue that such a statement is a clear indication of how he will rule (it's not), one can certainly argue that it is consistent with Roe.

My point is this: don't make too much of statements made decades ago and don't, for the love of god, don't think that Roe v. Wade is a bellwether of the Court. Look at judges and decide if they have the demeanor to be a Supreme Court judge and have a respect for their position. If judges have those two traits, then they will be good justices and you will get good law. Trying to look at an "ends" view of the Court is a fool's errand.

I am leaving for the day, so I apologize if someone asks me a question and I miss it. Please e-mail if you have a question.
posted by dios at 3:49 PM on November 14, 2005

In other words, the jurisprudence surrounding abortion is extremely nuanced. Judges have to navigate it based on all manner of precedent. Personal statements and belief are not the basis for opinions; the law is.

Yep and on the extreme you can nuance Roe v. Wade pretty much out of existence. When judges (particularly on the Supreme Court) are working in an area of the law that is not explicitly defined (right to privacy, equal rights etc.) then I'm sorry to tell you that at the end of the day all judges make decisions based on personal opinions. This opinions (not facts mind you) are derived from their own interpretations of laws, precedents and/or Constitutional provisions.
posted by aaronscool at 3:56 PM on November 14, 2005

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is in favor of abortion, has criticized Roe v. Wade as being a bad opinion!

that's irrelevant. she'll try to uphold Roe (look at her past votes), the Regan/BushI/BushII gang will overturn it. and then we'll see if the Republicans will lose or gaian votes, having accomplished what they promised their fundy base since 1980. the smart money (and more than a few Republicans in Congress) says that they'll lose swing votes. we'll see. Roe is going down anyway, we'll wait and see.

Judges personal feelings are not the basis for judgments. The law is.

heh.
posted by matteo at 3:59 PM on November 14, 2005

Trying to look at an "ends" view of the Court is a fool's errand.

Unless you're a woman who wants, I dunno, a safe abortion.

I am leaving for the day, so I apologize if someone asks me a question and I miss it. Please e-mail if you have a question.


Ask Dios. Truly best of the web.

Seriously though, it would be nice to live in a world where judges on both sides of the ideological divide cast aside their silly "real world" views and employed the law in a completely logical, methodical manner. Hell, someone should sell tickets. I'd like to take a vacation there.
posted by bardic at 4:37 PM on November 14, 2005

The neat thing about judges is that they rule based on what the law is, not what their personal predilections are.

Bush versus Gore was a great example of that.
posted by Coventry at 4:44 PM on November 14, 2005

delmoi, what he said is true: the Constituion doesn't not protect a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade does (and to be technical, Roe v. Wade doesn't support a right to abortion, but supports a right to some undefinied right to privacy that "whatever it means" protects the right of choice to terminate a pregnancy. He doesn't say that the Constitution forbids abortion. He doesn't say that the Constitution cannot support the line of privacy cases which might permit the protection of choice.

I was trying to come up with some counter to this, but actually I agree with you (!). Sort-of.

First of all, I honestly can't see how hypothetical a right to privacy could allow abortion, but not drug personal use.

Now, one might argue that it's just the right to buy, sell, or possess drugs (based on the commerce clause) but in that case the sale (or procedure) of abortion could be regulated as well)

I think abortion should be legal as a matter of policy, but it does kind of bug me that "liberals" (read: posters on Daily Kos) claim that run around claiming that we have some right to corporeal privacy, when clearly, we don't.

Maybe abortion, should be either regulated by the legislature, rather then SCOTUS, or we should create a new constitutional amendment giving women an enumerated right to have abortions.

---

The flip side is to say that we do have a right to privacy that goes beyond "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" based on the 14th amendment to the constitution.

But if that's the case, then we should also have the right to smoke pot, no?

I really don't see how you can have one without the other.
posted by delmoi at 4:44 PM on November 14, 2005

Question - what in the constitution would allow the government to force a woman to have a child?
Honestly. ‘Cause the first thing in my head was “right to be secure in their person....”

That and I tend to err to not allow the government any powers not specifically laid out.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:45 PM on November 14, 2005

Oh one other thing (I guess Dios won't see this, but I'll say it anyway)

delmoi, what he said is true: the Constituion doesn't not protect a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade does (and to be technical, Roe v. Wade doesn't support a right to abortion, but supports a right to some undefinied right to privacy that "whatever it means" protects...

That might be one technical parsing, but it doesn't really show Alito in a favorable light. Either he things Roe v. Waide was wrong, and would work to overturn it, or he thinks that it's OK, and would not seek to overturn it, but would make misleading statements to the president in order to get a job...
posted by delmoi at 4:48 PM on November 14, 2005

So even if Alito's confirmed, it'll still be 5-4 in favor of a right to abortion, so what's the problem here?
posted by gyc at 4:50 PM on November 14, 2005

So even if Alito's confirmed, it'll still be 5-4 in favor of a right to abortion, so what's the problem here?

The problem is when Souter dies.
posted by delmoi at 4:53 PM on November 14, 2005

“run around claiming that we have some right to corporeal privacy, when clearly, we don't.”
posted by delmoi

Please define corporeal privacy. Cause you totally lost me.

“First of all, I honestly can't see how hypothetical a right to privacy could allow abortion, but not drug personal use.”
posted by delmoi

Hell, I agree with you. The only reason - logical reason - I see for the whole ‘war on drugs’ however is national defense. Hook a society on a drug you control and you have their ass in a sling. One need only consider the Opium wars and the East India Trade company for lessons there.
...course I think it should still be legalized. But I suspect that can be done as it has in other countries. Perhaps not for a bit in the U.S. though, on the harder drugs I mean. I’m not sure we’ve growed up enough.
I suppose that’s coupled with attitudes about abortions as well. Someone at a clinic is referred to by protesters as a whore, but also as a killer. We’re not going to help anything with that attitude.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:53 PM on November 14, 2005

So even if Alito's confirmed, it'll still be 5-4 in favor of a right to abortion, so what's the problem here?

There is also a fear that four solid conservative (and Catholic) Justices might be able to swing Kennedy back into the firm anti-abortion camp, where he once lived. As Dios pointed out, he was very close to upholding the PA law at issue in Casey.

Although, I'm dubious of the prospect. Kennedy is starting to get outright sentimental in his old age, handing out constitutional protection like candy...(which I fully support, BTW). Delmoi's right, the real problem is if one of the "liberal" Justices dies - however, I think he meant to refer to John Paul Stevens, who is 85, and not Souter, who is a sprightly 66.
posted by thewittyname at 5:03 PM on November 14, 2005

Please define corporeal privacy. Cause you totally lost me.

What I meant was 'privacy of the body'. corporeal means relating to the body (among other things). I was just trying to be linguistically slick.

Hell, I agree with you.

That's the thing, a lot of "liberals" are big boosters of the war on drugs (Bill Clinton, Howard Dean before he hit the campaign trail, etc) but it's a nonsensical position to state that we have a right to privacy that should make abortion legal, but personal drug use not.

The only reason - logical reason - I see for the whole ‘war on drugs’ however is national defense. Hook a society on a drug you control and you have their ass in a sling. One need only consider the Opium wars and the East India Trade company for lessons there.


I don't really think that particular comparison makes sense. The Opium wars happened because England wanted money, and nothing else. China's opium addiction gave England money, just like Iraq's oil gives us money. However, any modern country could produce enough of any drug to sate their population. The US in particular could invade Columbia for the white gold just as it invaded Iraq for the black gold.

Some people make the argument that the war on drugs has always been about persecuting certain people. Prohibition came about because people didn't like drunks, originally marijuana was prohibited because people didn't like Mexicans, and later, hippies. Later it became a sort of self-fulfilling system. Drugs = crime, so stamp out drugs and stamp out crime.

I personally think that a big part of it is the puritan desire for people not to feel pleasure unless they work for it.

I once was accosted on a dark and chilly night by a very thin man with a chipmonk in a clear jar. He told me that he needed bus fair so that he could take the chipmonk out of the city and into it's natural habitat. No sober person would ever make such a clam and it actually scared me, which in turn made me angry. And I realized that this guy would eventually have the money to buy some crank (I'm sure that was what he was on) and feel happiness and joy. And I thought that he didn't deserve it. And I realized that that was the impetus for the war on drugs, a dislike of these lowlifes feeling happy, feeling joy. People hated it.

They didn't like obnoxious hippies being able to enjoy themselves with pot, or drunks with booze. Later as the drug war became a bigger and bigger problem, people just hated all the crime, etc, that drugs bought.
posted by delmoi at 5:13 PM on November 14, 2005

Delmoi's right, the real problem is if one of the "liberal" Justices dies - however, I think he meant to refer to John Paul Stevens, who is 85, and not Souter, who is a sprightly 66.

err, right.
posted by delmoi at 5:14 PM on November 14, 2005

I never could understand why Christians and/or Republicans are so adamant about abortion, yet they love war so much.

Babies.
posted by NationalKato at 5:35 PM on November 14, 2005

Who was that guy who just got elected that said he opposed the death penalty because he was a Catholic, but would enforce it 'cause it was the law?
*goes off to feed brain more coffee*

I think Smedleyman was referring to Tim Kaine, Democrat and governor-to-be of Virginia.
posted by Alt F4 at 5:37 PM on November 14, 2005

The right of the people to be secure in their persons

It seems that this should cover a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. Or does the usa constitution not yet acknowledge that women are persons?
posted by zarah at 5:46 PM on November 14, 2005

Something for those interested in the demographics (pdf) of abortion.
posted by MiHail at 6:02 PM on November 14, 2005

The fixation on Roe v. Wade as the bellwether of the law is a travesty.

And that's exactly what you would say if you were a conservative trying to sneak Alito in under the radar.

Anybody else remember "compassionate conservatism?"
posted by afroblanca at 6:05 PM on November 14, 2005

The neat thing about judges is that they rule based on what the law is, not what their personal predilections are.

If that were true, you wouldn't be able to consistently predict Supreme Court votes through the ideology of individual justices. But, lo, you can. In the Supreme Court, at least, decisions are made on the basis of the policy consequences of the decisions, and they concoct an argument about "what the law is" afterwards to justify that decision.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:26 PM on November 14, 2005

ROU_Xenophobe, it's also called Critical Legal Studies.
posted by bardic at 6:42 PM on November 14, 2005

The right of the people to be secure in their persons

Some see the baby to by a person at conception. The baby's rights to be secure in their person.
posted by Carbolic at 6:54 PM on November 14, 2005

WHAT!!! Bush picks an anti-abortion judge? NO! NO FUCKIN' WAY, MAN! I totally cannot believe this shit!

Dude. Really.
posted by Decani at 6:56 PM on November 14, 2005

DUDE - HE SAID THERE WAS NO LITMUS TEST!!!! NO!!!!!!
posted by xammerboy at 7:34 PM on November 14, 2005

Alright, this discussion ain't going anywhere, so I don't feel bad about interjecting: what effect is this going to have on the nomination process itself?

Is it in the dem's interest to fight this one, now that they have a great soundbite (at a minimum) against Mr. Alito?

What is the Rep's response to that?

I really don't understand the political context to this nomination; I can tell there's a lot of money piling up for the time around the nomination, but I can't tell what each side is gunning for. Well, I know what the reps are gunning for. But do the dems expect to win, or just expect to put the reps in the corner in the next election?
posted by metaculpa at 7:55 PM on November 14, 2005

Some see the baby to by a person at conception. The baby's rights to be secure in their person.

Uh, the particular amendment (amendment 4) states that the people are secure against unreasonable search and seizure by the government. No one here is arguing that fetuses should have their property searched without a warrant. At least not me.
posted by delmoi at 8:06 PM on November 14, 2005

I really don't understand the political context to this nomination; I can tell there's a lot of money piling up for the time around the nomination, but I can't tell what each side is gunning for. Well, I know what the reps are gunning for. But do the dems expect to win, or just expect to put the reps in the corner in the next election?

well, the majority of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade is right. So if the dems can keep Alito off the bench, more people will support then, and if they fail, the republicans will look like dicks (since they'll have to use the 'nuclear option' if dems filibuster)
posted by delmoi at 8:09 PM on November 14, 2005

Havn't the republicans insulated themselves against that? They keep calling it the "constitutional option", and honestly I trust their spin machine to beat the dems' any day.

I really don't see the Democrats fighting well on this one, but I'm not sure where I get my cynicism.

(Oh yeah! 5 years of spinelessness! That's where!)
posted by metaculpa at 8:14 PM on November 14, 2005

Something for those interested in the demographics (pdf) of abortion.
posted by MiHail at 6:02 PM PST on November 14 [!]

Thanks for that link. That is some truly interesting information.
posted by bumpkin at 8:31 AM on November 15, 2005

ScAlito is also opposed to disability rights (just like Scalia, I might point out.)

And the worst and most damning piece of the recently released Raygun job application may well be that ScAlito is opposed to democracy. I trust Nathan Newman explains that sufficiently.

Guy sounds like a shoo-in for our nutty Dubya friends.
posted by nofundy at 8:36 AM on November 15, 2005

Some see the baby to by a person at conception. The baby's rights to be secure in their person.
posted by Carbolic at 9:54 PM EST

Miscarriages are murder!
Murder, I tell you!
This carnage must be stopped!
It ain't christian!
Voting for a supporter of miscarriages is of the Devil!
A nation that supports miscarriers is doomed by God!
posted by nofundy at 8:40 AM on November 15, 2005

It would be really fancy and nice if those who are actually in favor of abortion go pass a law or something so we can stop arguing about it. You'll notice that making laws works better in the legislature, too.
posted by koeselitz at 10:08 AM on November 15, 2005

ROU_Xenophobe, it's also called Critical Legal Studies.

That seems to be something very different, at least insofar as it carries with it a trainload of ideological baggage. The attitudinal model, as it's usually called, doesn't; it's just a (better) descriptive model of how the Supreme Court makes decisions, and it doesn't talk about reinforcing existing power structures or anything like that, only that Supreme Court justices make their decisions on the basis of their policy preferences.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:19 AM on November 15, 2005

The neat thing about judges is that they rule based on what the law is, not what their personal predilections are.

Well that's a relief.

I don't know how literal Coventry meant to be when responding sarcastically "Bush versus Gore was a great example of that" but it's actually a very good point. BvG was a reversal of consistent positions regarding state autonomy on almost all the justice's parts. There's plenty of interesting reading out there on the subject.
posted by phearlez at 10:29 AM on November 15, 2005

Is almost everyone against abortion?

I know I am.

Pro-choice supporters need to stop letting this sort of sloppy language slip by.

I am anti-abortion. I am also strongly pro-choice. I want to see abortion rates decline, but through support, not through coercion!

Increase funding for supporting daycares, parent training, adoptions, and foster care. Make it easier for women to raise children and more of them will choose an alternative to abortion.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:18 AM on November 15, 2005

delmoi: My post was in response to this. I was trying to say that some people feel that the unborn are persons and would see an abortion as violating their right to be secure in their person. My point was that in these people's minds the mother's right to be secure in her person would be offset by the fetus' right. The Supremes based their idea of a "right to privacy" on a number of amendments including IV.

My feelings on the subject of abortion basically match those of five fresh fish.
posted by Carbolic at 12:15 PM on November 15, 2005

Tim Kaine! -thanks Alt F4

'privacy of the body' - got it delmoi, thanks.
/I disagree with some of your take on the opium wars. But that’s a whole other conversation.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:30 PM on November 15, 2005

delmoi: My post was in response to this. I was trying to say that some people feel that the unborn are persons and would see an abortion as violating their right to be secure in their person.

Right, but it's an odd phrasing, because it harkens to the 4th amendment, which gives us the right to be secure against government search and seizure. It's not the government doing the abortion, it's the mother.

Basically, what the pro-life people are arguing is that killing an unborn person is murder. That's fine, but that's an issue of state law, not federal law. (Although I'm sure the fed would step in if some state legalized murder!)

No rational person would ever think that the constitution gave us the right to murder, so the question has always been "Is abortion murder". States have the right to regulate murder.
posted by delmoi at 3:43 PM on November 15, 2005

dios: Alito's "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" statement is not even close to Roe's decision that while abortion is not explicity protected it falls under some other explicit protections.

How many freedoms do we enjoy that are not explicitly protected by the Constitution but fall under the umbrella of some general statements about the limits of the state in this or that area?

You can't just assert "the Constituion doesn't protect a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade does" unless you're used to speaking to people who are rigidly anti-Roe and have as their litmus test that the Roe decision was wrongly decided—and have decided beyond that there is no possibility that abortion is a protected individual right under the Constitution. When you say "abortion is not protected by the Consitution" you're saying a lot more than Roe was wrongly founded; you're saying there's no way that it could have been decided in a way that limited the state's ability to legislate.

The way you talk, it's as if every single specific thing has to be spelled out in the Constitution (or the Federalist Papers, which some people on your side act like was written in the Constitution in invisible ink). You would say that the SC cannot rule "okay, the Constitution says X about the individual's rights in this general area, and Y about the state's powers, and looking at history Z, we rule that the proper limitation of the state's power is f(X,Y,Z)."

Personally I think that's their job. The Roe decision was about the limits of the state's power to legislate over individual rights. It seems pretty well reasoned to me, though IANAL, so what do I know.

How do you think the Roe decision should have gone? Do you think the SC should have said, effectively: "We dunno.. the text search on 'abortion' in the Constitution gets no hits, so I guess it's up to the Legislature to decide how much to limit their own powers in this one."

Of course I realize you're a million more times qualified on this subject than I am.. but your weak arguments and ubiqitous contempt for Roe and its defenders frankly don't make me think you're coming from an objective, ideology-free place.
posted by fleacircus at 4:05 PM on November 15, 2005

delmoi Fine points and I agree. I made a poor attempt to explain the basis for my poor comment.
posted by Carbolic at 6:39 PM on November 15, 2005

There are people who see miscarriages as accidental or unfortunate deaths, and who grieve (sometimes in very bizarre ways) for the baby. That miscarriage argument isn't valid.

It is like equating opposition of murder of an adult to opposition of deaths due to lightning strikes.

Either way this seems like a bad argument to be having. The moment this debate becomes about the personhood of the fetus, it becomes a question that many people are going to see as spiritual.

The logic of anti-abortionists isn't fallacious inherently, if we treat it that way we ruin any ability to communicate with the other side. The issue that should be at the center of the debate is whether the mother's rights supercede those of the child.

If somebody entered your house, and if they were forcibly removed they would die, would you still have the right to remove them if you so chose? Not would it be a moral, ethical, or religiously or spiritually correct, but would you have the right? As far as I can see you would have that right, and it would seem incorrect to me for people to not have that right. Therefore I don't see how I can oppose abortion.

And I really think those are the terms that pro-choicers need to try to frame the debate in. Every time we get to discussing personhood of the fetus, every time we bring up statistics comparing embryos to other lifeforms of roughly the same size, I really believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Nobody on the other side is going to be swayed by that argument, it just makes us look like mad scientist villains from poorly written sci-fi movies.
posted by SomeOneElse at 6:59 PM on November 15, 2005

What fivefreshfish said.
A person can be against abortion AND pro-choice.
No problem.
It's all about the process of reducing the number of abortions.

Most everyone who supports choice would agree that using abortion as an acceptable form of birth control is somewhat reprehensible and would also say it should never be illegal.

It's time for a Right To Privacy Amendment! Why not?
posted by nofundy at 6:55 AM on November 16, 2005

I think some could find a problem with a right to privacy amendment in many of the comments made here. How do you determine who has the right to privacy? Is a specific age (like age of consent, military service, legally drink alcohol, etc...)? What current laws does that affect right now (drug possession/consumption) Do you really want the federal government to determine your right to privacy? Then there are nasty political/lobbyist/commerce issues that are raised. How would the right to privacy be handled when you give personal information while signing up for a website, shopping online, military recruitment, etc...? We already have problems with personal information being stolen or shipped overseas. I don't think you're ever going to see a general amendment like the first amendment anymore because of all the problems that they cause. I think that the first 10 were the easiest ones for everyone to agree on because there weren't so many laws/policies to take into consideration at the time.

I mean _someone_ mentioned a flag desecration law just last friday, but this has been fought with the 1st amendment for years.
posted by kookywon at 3:03 PM on November 16, 2005