Roe Vs Wade-the dismissed Does

[Chris]

I am not interested in making this out to be another Roe is unconstitutional thread. I just have a question about the case.

In the begining, the Does are basically dismissed from consideration because what essentially looks like speculative 'future'.

Roe Vs Wade[/url]]
C. The Does. In view of our ruling as to Roe's standing in her case, the issue of the Does' standing in their case has little significance. The claims they assert are essentially the same as those of Roe, and they attack the same statutes. Nevertheless, we briefly note the Does' posture.

Their pleadings present them as a childless married couple, the woman not being pregnant, who have no desire to have children at this time because of their having received medical advice that Mrs. Doe should avoid pregnancy, and for "other highly personal reasons." But they "fear . . . they may face the prospect of becoming parents." And if pregnancy ensues, they "would want to terminate" it by an abortion. They assert an inability to obtain an abortion legally in Texas and, consequently, the prospect of obtaining an illegal abortion there or of going outside Texas to some place where the procedure could be obtained legally and competently.

We thus have as plaintiffs a married couple who have, as their asserted immediate and present injury, only an alleged "detrimental effect upon [their] marital happiness" because they are forced to "the choice of refraining from normal sexual relations or of endangering Mary Doe's health through a possible pregnancy." Their claim is that sometime in the future Mrs. Doe might become pregnant because of possible failure of contraceptive measures, and at that time in the future she might want an abortion that might then be illegal under the Texas statutes.

This very phrasing of the Does' position reveals its speculative character. Their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible future unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health. Any one or more of these several possibilities may not take place and all may not combine. In the Does' estimation, these possibilities might have some real or imagined impact upon their marital happiness. But we are not prepared to say that the bare allegation of so indirect an injury is sufficient to present an actual case or controversy. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S., at 41-42; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S., at 109-110; Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d, at 1124-1125; Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d, at 839. The Does' claim falls far short of those resolved otherwise in the cases that the Does urge upon us, namely, Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617 (1971); Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970); and Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (196. See also Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

The Does therefore are not appropriate plaintiffs in this litigation. Their complaint was properly dismissed by the District Court, and we affirm that dismissal.

Yet, it appears as though a speculative future is critical in consideration of Roe?

Roe Vs Wade[/url]]This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

It seems to me that with the Does, future injuries weren't enough, but with Roe, future injuries were considered. I don't get it. The way they describe harm and life, and health, it never limits it to the immediate conditions, and leaves open the possible future outcomes of bearing children. Why then didn't the Doe's have a case if the possible future of bearing children is worth considering?

[Sandy Price]

I was very shocked when Roe v Wade hit the Supreme Court. I took care of the subject in my own home long before this action. I understood that birth control is often a failure and with the rape date drug being pushed off on many girls in America, unless this procedure for abortion is legally allowed it will continue to be done illegally with many deaths seen as a result. In my day, abortions were illegal and many of my generation of gals would fly to Europe where the procedures were done safely and relatively inexpensive.

My long history of attending Sunday School explained the reasons for a ban on abortions. The thought that a fetus would in all probability end up a Christian was enough for the Church leaders to threaten hell and damnation to the women in trouble.

Today this probability is losing percentages and will likely be that fetuses will end up as Atheists. We all have stories on this wretched hold over humans by the conspiracy of a ghost keeping track of our deeds. It is losing the battle. Our culture at this time is based on sexual activity. Our movies, television shows and commercials are selling products and even Christmas as how well we perform in bed. Even in our most Christian families, there is no guarantee that any baby born belongs to the legal father. We brought this on ourselves and abortion must be legal or all our children will look like Brad Pitt or Tiger Woods.

Women are not brood mares and are very much a part of this society. We can label them, put them in prison and burn them at the stake. Keep abortions legal and it will be up to the family head of the household to set the rules. Can the family set the example? Can the government set the example? Can the clergy set the example?

[DTA]

I was very shocked when Roe v Wade hit the Supreme Court. I took care of the subject in my own home long before this action. I understood that birth control is often a failure and with the rape date drug being pushed off on many girls in America, unless this procedure for abortion is legally allowed it will continue to be done illegally with many deaths seen as a result. In my day, abortions were illegal and many of my generation of gals would fly to Europe where the procedures were done safely and relatively inexpensive.

My long history of attending Sunday School explained the reasons for a ban on abortions. The thought that a fetus would in all probability end up a Christian was enough for the Church leaders to threaten hell and damnation to the women in trouble.

Today this probability is losing percentages and will likely be that fetuses will end up as Atheists. We all have stories on this wretched hold over humans by the conspiracy of a ghost keeping track of our deeds. It is losing the battle. Our culture at this time is based on sexual activity. Our movies, television shows and commercials are selling products and even Christmas as how well we perform in bed. Even in our most Christian families, there is no guarantee that any baby born belongs to the legal father. We brought this on ourselves and abortion must be legal or all our children will look like Brad Pitt or Tiger Woods.

Women are not brood mares and are very much a part of this society. We can label them, put them in prison and burn them at the stake. Keep abortions legal and it will be up to the family head of the household to set the rules. Can the family set the example? Can the government set the example? Can the clergy set the example?

I agree with you that abortion is required sometimes as a matter of good public policy to prevent further harm by women choosing to self-perform rather than carry their rapist's child.

I think many just disagree on the extent it is legal. I don't think many take issue with abortions for directly corresponding maternal harm and additional public policy reasons such as incest and rape.

In addition I'd advocate complete state funding so that every woman is on the same page and "rights" are equally exercisable by those with the financial means and those without.

It is a balancing exercise in the end and there are no absolutes. The right to choose is just as counter-productive as the right to life.
They are both just ridiculous concepts that have crippled any meaningful debate since neither side is giving any ground.

[Sandy Price]

Actually I believe that abortions are not within the power of the federal government to ban or accept. They could be the responsibility of the state but with the churches calling the removal of a fetus murder, the public will never put this in their state Constitutions.

Abortions and Death with Dignity are examples of individual choices but are attacked by the churches. This is a good example of trying to force America into being a Christian Nation. That is against the first Amendment.

Roe v Wade has been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court and the subject of individual privacy became the reason for R v W to exist. I am on the Board of Directors of the Compassion and Choices, N.W. Phoenix Chapter, and we are going the route of State Approval. Arizona is the retirement state for many religious people who honest feel that we die, when Jesus says so. Show me in the Constitution where this is considered federal law.

I was very pro-life with two teenage daughters before R v W. They were both in a good University and managed to finish up without the procedure. After that they were on their own.

Another problem enters into the reason for Roe v Wade. Many women have experienced miscarriages through no fault of their own. The suicide rate increased when very religious people felt it had to be the fault of the mother. I fell off a ladder in my 4th month and was terrified when I miscarried and called a friend who was a nurse. She cleaned me up and agreed I should not go to the hospital or my reputation could be damaged. It turned out that I did conceive and deliver a couple of years later.

I've never understood why women have to be legislated to force an unwanted fetus in their lives. I believe that this has caused many good and decent women to walk out of church and never look back. The churches have every right to prohibit any action but to carry it into the federal government is wrong! It is threats like this prohibition that has turned the American people away from respecting our once proud government.

The Constitution was written to protect the people from the government and not the other way around. America was never designed as a police state and the citizens should know better than to force it. The police state belongs in the home and churches. You are the head of the household in your family and can control the actions if you desire. Bringing the government into this private and personal legislation is for governments run on religious laws.

[DTA]

Actually I believe that abortions are not within the power of the federal government to ban or accept. They could be the responsibility of the state but with the churches calling the removal of a fetus murder, the public will never put this in their state Constitutions.

Well they've dealt with the funding quite exhaustively through the Hyde Ammendment and now the latest Healthcare Reform Bill.

I think that sometimes legislatures are required in order to define more complete abortion laws than a Supreme Court ever could. The Court left alot of holes in the practical application of the law such as how the service would be facilitated.

Abortions and Death with Dignity are examples of individual choices but are attacked by the churches. This is a good example of trying to force America into being a Christian Nation. That is against the first Amendment.

Well I'm not against abortion based on any religious view; I oppose it morally quite simply because a duty should exist not to intentionally interfere with the offspring's development to its detriment once conceived since, if left alone, it will almost certainly become a person with experiences.


Furthermore, I can accept circumstances where it is just good public policy to allow it so I'm not necessariliy advocating my morality be applied in law but that is my moral position on abortion and i've already presented my legal position.

Another problem enters into the reason for Roe v Wade. Many women have experienced miscarriages through no fault of their own. The suicide rate increased when very religious people felt it had to be the fault of the mother. I fell off a ladder in my 4th month and was terrified when I miscarried and called a friend who was a nurse. She cleaned me up and agreed I should not go to the hospital or my reputation could be damaged. It turned out that I did conceive and deliver a couple of years later.

Well morally I can see nothing wrong with an innocent miscarriage. You breach no moral duty if you never intended to miscarry since you are not acting positively to interfere with its development.

Sometimes you just have to say Christians are irrational.

I've never understood why women have to be legislated to force an unwanted fetus in their lives. I believe that this has caused many good and decent women to walk out of church and never look back. The churches have every right to prohibit any action but to carry it into the federal government is wrong! It is threats like this prohibition that has turned the American people away from respecting our once proud government.

It isn't as simple as that. In addition "force" is a term with negative connotations that is rarely accurately used by the pro-choice movement i've noticed. In what way would the government be actually forcing a woman to have a baby by restricting her access to legal abortions?

She can still self-perform, she can still procure one in mexico or whatever not that I'm recommending either of course. But I struggle to see how the govt restricting your access to a medical procedure means they're forcing you to do anything? They're just prohibiting the intervening act of an abortionist that's all, they're not locking women up and monitoring them.

The Constitution was written to protect the people from the government and not the other way around. America was never designed as a police state and the citizens should know better than to force it. The police state belongs in the home and churches. You are the head of the household in your family and can control the actions if you desire. Bringing the government into this private and personal legislation is for governments run on religious laws.

Well now we come to the crux of the legal debate; how does a right to privacy in medical decisions infer a right to procure any medical procedure or medical-related drugs that one decides one wants?

For example you have a right to privacy to choose which LEGAL drugs you take, that is without question.
However, since when could I walk into a clinic or hospital and demand opium for pain relief? It's a private medical decision that I've made but it does not in any way infer the right to procure that drug just because I want it (even when it relates to my medical condition).

Therefore I don't think abortion should be specifically constitutionally protected at all. I think Justice Blackmun has made leaps in his argument for legalized abortion that he cannot logically justify.

As for your fear-mongering about a police state I think that relates more to actual privacy in your home than abortion ever could.

There is a legitimate state interest in protecting the welfare of the unborn, just as there is a legitimate state interest in protecting the welfare of animals.
It does not infer that either possess rights to anything but rather that there is a duty to protect which the common law has already established in tort cases brought against negligent doctors and even mothers for harming the unborn.
There is also no legal problem in creating offences for harming the unborn, though I'm not sure we need to go that far. Merely restricting abortions would be sufficient deterrence to law-abiding citizens.