Roe V Wade

[Learned Hand]

Why was Roe v Wade needed for that purpose? Doesn't the tenth ammendment say that all rights not granted to the government remain with the people?

Of course. But the States have the power to enact criminal laws (as does the federal government) under the constitution. Many states prior to Roe v. Wade criminalized sodomy, and many still have it on the books. Due to Roe and subsequent opinions based on Roe, an individual has a substantive, as opposed to merely procedural, right of due process. Invading a private space without protecting private rights is unlawful; therefore, any arrest for sodomy in states that still carry that law must be public, and not behind the closed doors of one's personal property.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Of course. But the States have the power to enact criminal laws (as does the federal government) under the constitution. Many states prior to Roe v. Wade criminalized sodomy, and many still have it on the books. Due to Roe and subsequent opinions based on Roe, an individual has a substantive, as opposed to merely procedural, right of due process. Invading a private space without protecting private rights is unlawful; therefore, any arrest for sodomy in states that still carry that law must be public, and not behind the closed doors of one's personal property.

So, prior to Roe, were the police beating down peoples doors to arrest them for sodomy? Kind of the way they now troll around in public restrooms trying to nail homosexuals?

 

[iceaura]

You really don't think that the sexual promiscuity that started in the 60's and reached a frenzy in the 70's had nothing to do with AIDS that popped up in the 80's?

Not much, no. AIDS popped up in Africa, for one thing - the whole "free love" thing was more American.

A little more attention to the VD rates of the past will make a point here: sexual promiscuity did not "start" in the 60s. It may have changed form or style, social expression, or whatever, but syphilis was a plague worse than AIDS is now, in Europe and America at times past.

So, prior to Roe, were the police beating down peoples doors to arrest them for sodomy?

Sometimes, if there was an official interest in the person.

Bad law often leads to discriminatory enforcement.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

So, prior to Roe, were the police beating down peoples doors to arrest them for sodomy?

Yes. And chaining homosexuals to telephone poles. Some of that went on even after Roe v. Wade. Remember that Bowers v. Hardwick didn't arise until 1982:

Journalist Randy Shilts describes the incident that triggered the case called Bowers v. Hardwick :"The debate centered on a twenty-nine-year-old bartender named Michael Hardwick, arrested by Atlanta police on the night of August 2, 1982. The police officer knocked on Hardwick's front door to serve a warrant for public intoxication; a house guest pointed the officer toward Hardwick's bedroom door. The policemen opened the door and saw Hardwick engage in oral sex with another man. When the policeman said he was serving his warrant, Hardwick explained that he had already cleared up the matter in court and offered to show the officer his receipt. That no longer mattered, the policemen said, because he had found Hardwick engaging in a violation of the Georgia law that banned oral and anal sex. Hardwick and his companion spent the next twelve hours in jail."

(GLSEN.org)

Consider the famous Stonewall Riots. Wikipedia tells the story thus:

The question then remains why the Stonewall was raided if gay bars were legal and on the rise. John D’Emilio, a prominent historian, points out that the city was in the middle of a mayoral campaign and John Lindsay, who had lost his party’s primary, had reason to call for a cleanup of the city’s bars. There were a number of reasons that made the Stonewall Inn an easy target: it operated without a liquor license; had ties to organized crime; and, “offering scantily clad go-go boys as entertainment, it brought an ‘unruly’ element to Sheridan Square” (D’Emilio 231).

The Stonewall Inn was frequented mainly by Black and Hispanic gay men. Many of those present were transgender and/or drag queens.

Deputy Inspector Seymour Pine, who led the raid on the bar that first night, claims that he was ordered to close the Stonewall Inn because it was the central location for gathering information on gay men who worked on Wall Street. A recent increase in the number of thefts from brokerage houses on Wall Street led police to suspect that gay men, forced by blackmail, were behind the thefts ....

.... On Saturday morning, June 28, 1969, shortly after 1:20 a.m., police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village. A number of factors differentiated the raid that took place on June 28 from other such raids on the Stonewall Inn. In general, the sixth precinct tipped off the management of the Stonewall Inn prior to a raid. In addition, raids were generally carried out early enough in the night to allow business to return to normal for the peak hours of the night. At approximately 1:20 a.m., much later than the usual raid, eight officers from the first precinct, of whom only one was in uniform, entered the bar. Most of the patrons were able to escape being arrested as the only people arrested “would be those without IDs, those dressed in the clothes of the opposite gender, and some or all of the employees”.

Details about how the riot started vary from story to story. According to one account, a transgender woman named Sylvia Rivera threw a bottle at a police officer after being prodded by his nightstick .... Another account states that a lesbian, being brought to a patrol car through the crowd put up a struggle that encouraged the crowd to do the same .... Whatever the case may be, mêlée broke out across the crowd—which quickly overtook the police. Stunned, the police retreated into the bar. Heterosexual folk singer Dave van Ronk, who was walking through the area, was grabbed by the police, pulled into the bar, and beaten ....

(Wikipedia)

And I, personally, like British commentator Mark Steel's account:

In America, just as the women's movement had sprung from the Civil Rights for blacks campaign, another movement would spring from women's groups. Betty Friedan, founder of the National Organization for Women, had referred to lesbians in the movement as "the Lavender Menace". Gay men were in a marginally better position than in Britain, as they did have a few bars in the major cities in which they could be openly gay, and the most famous of these was in Greenwich Village, New York, called the Stonewall Inn. In 1966, this was taken over by Mario, Zucci, and Fat Tony, three gays in the Mafia. It's hard to imagine a gay Greenwich Village Mafia:

Gangster 1: Well, if you ask me, it's time we took out the Tatallias. Have you seen what they've been wearing lately, for Chrissake? I tell you, they're bringing gangsters into disrepute.

Gangster 2: Oh, puh-leeze stop getting all cooked up! I'm dealing with them!

Gangster 1: Why? What did you do? Steal their Barbara Streisand tickets?

Gangster 2: I made the head of the family an offer he couldn't refuse.

Gangster 1: Oh, you flatter yourself.​

The bar was expensive, the drinks were expensive, and although the police were being paid off, they still raided it frequently, and made huge profits for the mob. One summer night in 1969, the police raided the place—as usual—at which point the gay men started striking up poses as they were arrested. But a lesbian who was put into a police van climbed straight out of the other side and started rocking the van. The police started truncheoning her and a riot started. Fire hydrants were ripped up, bricks were brought down from a building site, and the police were pelted with weapons. Deputy Inspector Pine said,

I've been in combat situations, but I've never been as scared as I was then.​

The Tactical Patrol Force, set up to deal with Vietnam demonstrations, were called out, but they were also forced to retreat, at which point dozens of queens formed a chorus line in front of the burning building, singing,

We are the Stonewall girls. We wear our hair in curls. We wear no underwear. We show our pubic hair. We wear our dungarees above our nelly knees.​

Only gays could be halfway through a riot and then decide to write a musical about it.

The riot lasted three days, with each retreat by the police being followed by more forces returning. At one point, an officer said repeatedly to one gay, "I'd like to break your ass wide open," until the gay replied, "What a Freudian comment, officer." And what I love about that is that at some point over the next few days, that copper would have been at the library, looking through the Encyclopedia Britannica, going, "Freud, Freud, Freud, Freud ... you bastard!"

(Steel)

At any rate, Roe v. Wade was included in the arguments about Bowers v. Hardwick:

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 760 F.2d 1202 (1985). The court first held that, because Doe was distinguishable and, in any event, had been undermined by later decisions, our summary affirmance in that case did not require affirmance of the District Court. Relying on our decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969); and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the court went on to hold that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights because his homosexual activity is a private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was remanded for trial, at which, to prevail, the State would have to prove that the statute is supported by a compelling interest and is the most narrowly drawn means of achieving that end.

(Legal Information Institute)

The U.S. Supreme Court went on to reject that decision by the Eleventh Circuit°. Naturally, Roe came up again in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the Bowers decision.
_____________________

Notes:

° Eleventh Circuit — Ironically, the Eleventh is now presided over by Judge William H. Pryor, who equates homosexuality to necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality. In fact, he submitted an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas making that comparison directly. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Texas (rejecting arguments including Pryor's amicus brief), it overturned Bowers. Okay, I find it ironic and amusing.

Works Cited:

Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. "Bowers v. Hardwick and the "Right to Be Left Alone". GLSEN.org. January 1, 1999. See http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/31.html

Wikipedia. "Stonewall riots". Updated January 28, 2008. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Steel, Mark et al. "The Sexual Revolution". The Mark Steel Revolution, #102. BBC Radio 4. July 7, 1998.

White, J. "Opinion of the Court". Bowers v. Hardwick (85-140) 478 U.S. 186. United States Supreme Court. June 30, 1986. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZO.html

See Also:

Kennedy, A. "Opinion of the Court". Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) 539 U.S. 558. United States Supreme Court. June 26, 2003. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

Pryor, William H. "Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent". Lawrence v. Texas (02-102). February 18, 2003. See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.states.pdf

 

[madanthonywayne]

Yes. And chaining homosexuals to telephone poles. Some of that went on even after Roe v. Wade. Remember that Bowers v. Hardwick didn't arise until 1982:

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit. It should be no business of the state how you achieve sexual gratification. So long as all participants are of age and willing.

 

[Asguard]

Mad judges cant decide on things unless they are brought before them THAT is how judictial power is limited. Without Roe V Wade there probably would have been another case IF the parties involved had the money to take it to the high court. With Roe V Wade they dont have to. Thats why the case is so important

 

[Learned Hand]

. . . And is also why it is and will be very difficult to overturn; so many cases in both state and federal forums rely on Roe for the establishment of substantive due process, not just the right to abort.

 

[madanthonywayne]

. . . And is also why it is and will be very difficult to overturn; so many cases in both state and federal forums rely on Roe for the establishment of substantive due process, not just the right to abort.

I seriously doubt it will ever be completely overturned. Most likely it will just be whittled down a bit. As I said, I'm happy that the police aren't arresting people for sodomy anymore (except in public restrooms).

I definitely support the right to privacy. I just believe the baby should have some rights, too. If it were up to me, I'd set a limit of 6-8 weeks on abortion unless the mother's life were in danger or there were severe fetal abnormalities.

 

[Learned Hand]

Just a quick note here: present law grants rights to the child at the point of viability, or the ability to exist outside of the mother's womb. Endangerment of life remains an exception.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Just a quick note here: present law grants rights to the child at the point of viability, or the ability to exist outside of the mother's womb. Endangerment of life remains an exception.

At what age is the fetus considered "viable"? And what about those "partial birth"abortions you hear so much? It sounded like some of those were damned near full term infants? The pictures I've seen are horrific.

 

[iceaura]

And what about those "partial birth"abortions you hear so much? It sounded like some of those were damned near full term infants? The pictures I've seen are horrific.

Essentially no one does a late term abortion without damn good reason, and no one but the lunatic fringe opposes stringent regulation there (including flat legal ban in most circumstances). You were mentioning "self defense" ? Check out the horrific circumstances behind those horrific pictures. Tragedy in childbirth was not invented by modern medicine.

 

[Learned Hand]

At what age is the fetus considered "viable"?

Not sure. The law is stated in such a way as to provide a sliding scale latitude for progress in medical science. It could be 5 mos, or just under this. So, in short, it's a medical question. Partial birth abortions are on the fringe of viability; nobody in their right mind should get one -- unless there are the previously expressed dangers to life.

Learned

 

[Bells]

At what age is the fetus considered "viable"? And what about those "partial birth"abortions you hear so much? It sounded like some of those were damned near full term infants? The pictures I've seen are horrific.

A foetus becomes viable from between 24 to 27 weeks. That is when the foetus has an actual chance of survival.. slim, but the chance is still there. For legal definitions however, it could well be later than that.

A partial birth abortion is when the cervix is dilated and the foetus removed.. partial birth because the foetus comes down through the birth canal. It can occur at even 15 weeks into the pregnancy. Some women have to have it much later on in their pregnancy when her health is at stake or the foetus is found to be non-viable or could endanger the mother or is close to death. However, as I understand it, even those options for partial birth abortion are now in danger due to Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (Carhart II).

In a lot of cases, the photo's are doctored and blown up so the foetus does look as if it is full term. The majority of women would not choose to have a partial birth abortion, because it does mean they need to give birth to the foetus. The greater majority of women do have their abortion in the first trimester, since it is a lot less risky for them. Later partial birth abortions are usually performed when there is either something wrong with the foetus or the mother's life is at risk.

 

[Asguard]

Bells i maybe wrong but i thought most of the time when the mothers life is at risk they surgically abort the fetus. As i said i might be wrong about that (havent done the obstetrics unit yet)

 

[Orleander]

what do you mean surgically? Aren't all abortions (D&C???) surgically done?

 

[Asguard]

Ie a cesarian, Cut the body out of you. And no not all abortions are surgical procidures, ever herd of RU486?

 

[Bells]

Bells i maybe wrong but i thought most of the time when the mothers life is at risk they surgically abort the fetus. As i said i might be wrong about that (havent done the obstetrics unit yet)

Usually yes. But if she refuses, then they try to do what they can to ensure both survive and will pull the baby out as soon as it becomes viable. In cases where the mother has abnormally high blood pressure for example, they will give her medication to try to regulate her blood pressure and if that does not work, she is made to go into the hospital and stay there until the baby becomes viable, during which time they pump the foetus full of steroids to ensure its lungs and other organs are mature enough to be able to be born. In a case where the pregnancy is in the first trimester however, and her health is in danger, then they will usually abort the child and if she refuses, they can take her to the psych ward, declare her incompetent, and do what is necessary. Such things are quite rare however. If she has collapsed or is unconscious, they will do what is necessary to save her life.

I remember when I had my second and things had gone drastically wrong, I remember being in tears and sobbing, and I begged them to forget about me and to just make sure my baby made it. I was told 'no' by the doctors just as they were putting me under (bastards!). In pregnancy and where things go wrong, the mother's health is deemed to be paramount and they will do all they can to save both, but if they have to choose, then the mother has priority.

 

[Bells]

Ie a cesarian, Cut the body out of you. And no not all abortions are surgical procidures, ever herd of RU486?

RU486 is not an abortion. It is a pill to ensure the woman menstruates, therefore preventing any fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus.

 

[Orleander]

I have never ever heard of a cesarian abortion. EVER.

 

[Asguard]

Sorry you missed what i ment, I ment wont they do a cesarian rather than a partial birth abortion

And did you sue those doctors?
Just because you chose to put the life of your fetus over your own doesnt mean that they can declare you incopitant. Infact just going against doctors advice doesnt mean they can declare you incopitant. That is your choice just like that case where the woman delayed cancer treatment so that it wouldnt kill the baby. Hell a hospital cant even overrule a JW and give a blood transfusion for hypovalimic anemia if the pt would die with out it