[MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ

[Michael Poloukhine]

> Ham wrote:
> And, if you don't believe the Supreme Court's decision is fair or 
> moral, how would you "craft reasonable legislation" that is?
MP: I do believe its fair as a law, if only it WERE a law. 

My problem with R v. W is not *what* it said, but that it was the *court* saying it. 
You don't seem to be getting this part.


> Ham wrote:
>  What would be  a reasonable ruling in your opinion?
MP: Same as those of White's and Renquist's dissent. While it sucks for Ms 
Roe because she lives in a state with some nasty abortion laws, there is 
nonetheless no US Constitutional violation found. Recommend that as the 
people have the right to enact laws in this regard on a national level that the 
people consider drafting a national law to assure certain basic abortion 
protections under the liberty right but then with clear protections for the life right, 
or then that they ammend the Constitution to allow for a privacy right to protect 
them Constitutionally. But the court should have bowed out and deferred to the 
people.

If they HAD to rule, then at least rule that *in that particular case* the State had 
not adequately shown that it was in the interest of the State to prevent Jane 
Roe's abortion. That the Sate, under the 14th is obliged to show it has the 
greater interest in curtailing her liberty. But I don't know enough details to know 
if the State hadn't in fact done this. The ruling was not about the strength of the 
State's case.

If the people want a right to privacy, we should be amending the Constitution to 
get it.

If the people want a national law on abortion, we should be writing it.

If the people want each state to have laws varying under that national law, we 
should be writing them.

The only job of the Court is to interpret those laws against the Constitution *as it 
is written*

Hell. Even Ginsburg takes my side on this one.

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."