Flaws in the press release of Knights of Columbus CEO calls for overturning Roe v Wad

[Pah]

While the original post, Knights of Columbus CEO calls for overturning Roe v Wade, in the Catholic forum would preclude debate, there are statements that seem to be flawed

it [pah- the beginning of human life] is readily apparent to all that its “science” was equally flawed.”

It is hardly apparent to ALL or there would be no discussion today.

“In 1973, the court majority declared that it “need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,’ because there was a ‘wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question.’ In fact, there was little doubt at all about when life begins in 1973, and there is no doubt whatsoever today,” Anderson declared. “Each person’s life begins at conception, and using modern technology we can view every moment of the earliest development of the human child. Today, doctors routinely enable the long-term survival of premature children who are delivered well before the moment of ‘viability’ described in Roe.”

In fact, the Court DID set a definition when it limited state interest in the fetus to zero. If a state has interest in the welfare of it's citizens, than a no interest declaration would say that the fetus has no rights.

“Together, the decisions in Roe and Dred Scott form a unique category that stands apart from every other Supreme Court decision in our nation’s history. Each considered the question of whether a particular category of human beings were ‘persons’ entitled to the protection of the law. And in each case, the court issued a decision that was profoundly and tragically wrong, and which resulted in horrendous injustice. It took a civil war to undo the injustice of Dred Scott. Today, we can undo the injustice of Roe v. Wade simply by recognizing that new scientific knowledge in this area mandates, and now justifies, a fresh look at the issue by the courts. For more than three decades, the courts have been struggling to sustain an increasingly untenable string of legal precedents based on Roe,” Anderson said. “The time has come for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the responsibility for deciding the issue to the people and their elected representatives,” he concluded.

Roe v Wade was re-affirmed in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

(b) Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty." Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society. The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 , family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , and contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 . Roe's central holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents. Pp. 846-853.

“Together, the decisions in Roe and Dred Scott form a unique category that stands apart from every other Supreme Court decision in our nation’s history. Each considered the question of whether a particular category of human beings were ‘persons’ entitled to the protection of the law. And in each case, the court issued a decision that was profoundly and tragically wrong, and which resulted in horrendous injustice. It took a civil war to undo the injustice of Dred Scott. Today, we can undo the injustice of Roe v. Wade simply by recognizing that new scientific knowledge in this area mandates, and now justifies, a fresh look at the issue by the courts. For more than three decades, the courts have been struggling to sustain an increasingly untenable string of legal precedents based on Roe,” Anderson said. “The time has come for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the responsibility for deciding the issue to the people and their elected representatives,” he concluded.

Actually, the comparision fails. There was no holding defining person in Roe v Wade but of deciding the constitutionality of law affecting the right to a woman's privacy.

There has been no new science since the Roe v Wade decision that warrants another look at Roe v Wade.

The Court will always be the arbitrater of a laws Constitutionality, not the people. The Constitution must change first.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm half inclined to wish the whole issue of abortion were thrown back to the people. Let the people come up with a new amendment to the Constitution specifically addressing the issue. But I wonder what such an amendment would look like? I doubt we have in our country today the wisdom to forge a wise compromise on the abortion issue, nor the political will to carry such a compromise forward to an amendment.

 

[Pah]

I'm half inclined to wish the whole issue of abortion were thrown back to the people. Let the people come up with a new amendment to the Constitution specifically addressing the issue. But I wonder what such an amendment would look like? I doubt we have in our country today the wisdom to forge a wise compromise on the abortion issue, nor the political will to carry such a compromise forward to an amendment.

The amendment would define when a product of conception is considered a human being and killing such is punishable by laws of murder.

 

[Scott1]

As far as your first comment:

It is hardly apparent to ALL or there would be no discussion today.

Remember that this was directed to a Catholic audience.... where it IS quite apparent to all faithful Catholics.

As far as the rest of your post: ..... all that law stuff is gibberish to me, sorry.

 

[Pah]

As far as your first comment:
Remember that this was directed to a Catholic audience.... where it IS quite apparent to all faithful Catholics.

As far as the rest of your post: ..... all that law stuff is gibberish to me, sorry.

While it may be directed at Catholics in the original thread, I believe it was a press release which generally has a much wider audience. It is also a national issue and has import far beyond a Catholic audience.

The reason I addressed it was because is does contain errors and these would be harmful for fully informed debate both here and nationally.

I'm sorry that the status of abortion as defined by law is gibberish. Perhaps that is why so many have not made comment regarding my posts. But the law is the only theater that counts in making any change to abortion. In order to bring about any change, the law must be understood. When talking about what the law "should be", you must understand how secular law is changed. To ignore that is to debate with the wind.

Though I understand that there is an allegiance to sectarian law, here in the United States secular law overrides God's law. The Supreme Court is the sole authority on secular law, not the wishes of the faithful, not the media blitz Christian organizations conduct among the faithful, not the dogma of various segements of the body of Christ, but the Constitution and the interpretations of the Constitution contained in case law. The Christian organizations don't care if you understand the law - they want you to blindly tell politicians what they have decided is good for you and your faith. Most Christians are better than that and should hold the thinking that allows them to see through religious rhetoric.

I am not offended by any that posses an opinion on any social issue. I am offended by Christians that swallow the message hook line and sinker without any critcal understanding of the issue. Although you should follow the Good Shepherd, if that is intregal to your faith, you should never act like sheep.

The Knights of Columbus, in my mind, treated you like sheep becuase they expected you to buy the argument without thinking.

I know I have used "you" often in this post and it is not meant for you, Scott.

 

[Scott1]

I know I have used "you" often in this post and it is not meant for you, Scott.

Thanks for clearing that up my friend.... and to clarify..... the legal issues and how they effect me is something that I am making an effort to learn.... and you have helped a lot with that.

Thanks!
Scott