Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But (none)
    that passage doesn't mean that Roberts cannot accept that a right to privacy exists, even as to abortion, and yet still hold that the state's interest in protecting life (even in the case of an unborn fetus) supercedes that right or at least allows the state to restrictr its exercise.

    Roberts might just balance the interests balanced by the Roe majority differently, using the same analytical frame work.

    In other words, while I find his apparent acceptance of Griswold encouraging, it does not signify to me that abortion rights are safe if he can be taken at his word.

    •  Fetus rights? (none)
      That would be new and unprecedented.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:37:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Roe itself allows prohibition in the 3rd trimester (none)
      •  I don't think fetus rights (none)
        are directly mentioned in the cases, but I believe the standard is the balancing test of the State's rights in the unborn, as discussed in Casey.

        The very notion that the State has a substantial interest in potential life leads to the conclusion that not all regulations must be deemed unwarranted. Not all burdens on the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue. In our view, the undue burden standard is the appropriate means of reconciling the State's interest with the woman's constitutionally protected liberty.

        although it's getting late, you still have plenty of time

        by maracuja on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:07:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct (none)
          The notion that the state has an interest in protection of potential life is hardly unprecedented.  It is a theme than runs through the jurisprudence in this area.  Armando is correct that an express recognition of fetal rights would be unprecedented, but the practical effect of recognizing a state interest in the area amounts to the same thing if taken too far.
    •  Word (none)
      What I think is missed a lot in all this is that its not Roe that is under threat directly, its that it is under threat indirectly.  The wittling away at Roe, via Parental rights to know, requirements for judicial review  - ie teens must request permission from the court, first, second, third trimester restrictions, limits on drugs, etc....all these things are the real threat.  

      I learned this listening to someone from one of the right-to-choice groups talking about the court and Roe etc.  Their feeling is that Roe is too much of a political hot button to be directly over-turned...so it is secure.  But there is much damage being done to rights at the state level and with the SCOTUS support.  This where I want to know where Roberts stands.  When it comes down to it, you really need to know the candidate's ideology.  If they dont have one, they are lieing....even not having one would mean you still have one by default even if that means indifference.  The fact that this guy worked hard for Regan, Bush, and clerked under Rhenquist is all a big tip off.  He didn't have to do those jobs just to pay his rent.  So I dont buy this BS about being forthcoming today - its all hoo-ha.  Look at his carrer record and the things he has spent his time on, thats what he cares about.  Anyone can say anything on a given afternoon.

      onnyturf.com - Collective Political and Community Journalism by NYers for NYers

      by atomicBirdsong on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:23:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site