Jerry...those are "no duh" responses. Address the argument if you disagree--not merely the sumarizing point.
You're telling me that I am not adressing the arguments, but that is what I have don with my every post here, so I don't know what more you want.
For point 1, the issue is expanding the 14th to what is NOT in the Constitution.
Since the 14th. IS a part of the constitution (
lets not have a word war over what an "amendment" is, please), the problem you are claiming here is in expanding the 14th. beyond what is in the 14th.
You might make the argument that there is no Constitutional basis for the 14th., and you would be correct, as the origins of the 14th. come from the DoI and a common understanding of the Natural Law premise, but that's another thread.
I disagree that RvW makes an error here because the right to be secure in ones person (=
body) and papers (=
medical records) is established in the 14th.
For point 2, the issue is expanding the 4th to what is NOT ALREADY EXPLICITELY STATED in the Constitution.
RvW did not create any "
right to abortion".
This is a common PC misunderstanding, which has been forwarded as a truth, which has in turn has lead to the abuse or RvW, which I oppose.
RvW declared the Texas abortive regulations to be too broadly interpretable, and thus too restrictive. Given that and the fact that "
personhood" could not be defined prenataly, the state, therefore, could not prove a “
compelling intrist”, and Roe's 4th. Amendment rights could not be infringed upon by the state.
For point 3, the issue is defining the "framework" at all--which is the state's legislative right--NOT A JUDICIAL right at all.
For the casual reader, here is that framework:
RvW section 11, 1;
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Persuent to
Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution....
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
...SCOTUS had the authority to declare that the states can regulate abortion.
