Comments on: Oklahoma, OK?

By: Iain Brassington

Iain Brassington — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:31:03 +0000

Fair point: I’ll ninja-edit the OP.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:52:41 +0000

Roe v Wade ensured that women in the US had a constitutionally-guaranteed right to abortion.

“the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Majority Opinion, Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade does not establish a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion. What it guarantees is that the decision to terminate a pregnancy be free from unjustified governmental intrusion. A right to an abortion would mean that the state has some obligation to provide and allow for access to an abortion. But a right to be free from government interference does not require that the state act. It seems as if the rest of your post relies on this distinction, but then the first line is simply mistaken.

A right to free public education, for instance, would require that the state provide free public education to everyone; but a right to make your own choices about education does not require that the state provide it.

By: John O'Malley

John O'Malley — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:46:06 +0000

I agree. These measures (especially the ultrasound one which is particularly nasty) are not clinically defensible and are just ways for the pro-life (pro-life in the sense you agree or in utero so not yet able to agree with the movement)lot to get their own way.
However, it does raise the issue that many people who harp on about ‘human rights’ forget. It is all very well stating that you have a right to x (as in Life of Brian where a man has a right to be pregnant) but that statement is useless unless there are methods and processes for you to exercise that right. What Roe v Wade failed to do is enforce that right so we therefore have the present nonsense. An arguement against a written constitution?