ABORTION: Understand Roe v Wade…

I was curious about the abortion situation and how it coincides with PRIVACY, which is being talked about so much right now…AND I thought you’d like to read “7 Reasons It Is Deeply Misleading To Claim Americans Support Roe v. Wade.   Excellent piece and good adjunct to the info below.


I thought I’d pass it on, since we are going to be hearing a lot about ABORTION RIGHTS in the coming months, though this is mostly a staged and ridiculous thing to harp on for the Left.  They know 63% of Americans want Roe v Wade to stay as it is and they know they can make trouble by mocking Trump and disparaging and calling for hatred against him in anybody he appoints because he had said he’d make sure any justice he appointed should want to overturn Roe v Wade.   Even overturning Roe v Wade does NOT mean abortions will be illegal….

SO, arm yourself with the info in my link….it’s good to be ‘up’ on this stuff.  Pick your side, but be ready and informed in case you find yourself discussing this subject….which you probably will!


This entry was posted in Abortion, Supreme Court. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to ABORTION: Understand Roe v Wade…

  1. bocopro says:

    Not ever’thang is wrong or right, black or white, clean or sleazy, quick and easy.

    Sumtimes there jist ain’t no eazy anser.

    Whut I knows fer shure be this:


  2. When you say “They know 63% of Americans want Roe v Wade to stay as it is”, I wonder how that aligns with the Federalist article pointing out that the majority of Americans oppose Roe.
    Roe is crap law. An originalist or constructionist could never support that ruling.
    Casey would have turned over Roe had it not been for Kennedy (or O’connor, or Souter).
    The left has every reason to fear Roe being overturned.
    Americans may not oppose contraception (a process that denies viability to a fertilized ovum, conception), but or even abortion up to heartbeat, but they damn well know murder when they see it.


    Liked by 1 person

  3. geeez2014 says:

    bocopro…I agree…this is a VERY tough one because I believe there is no way this law gets overturned, IF it even ever gets to the SCOTUS.
    The law is BAD, based on technicalities of laws…it’s BAD because it allows the killing of babies, but the PRIVACY point is what I wanted to learn about and that’s why I opened this subject up again.
    The other day, I pointed out how “The Great One,” Marc Levin says he believes RvW will not be taken up by the SCOTUS again and he has very good reasons.

    Ed, I know. I had written my post early yesterday morning and found the link from The Federalist last night and quickly added it in ….purposefully left the contradiction…..to show that THIS WHOLE THING IS A CONTRADICTION.

    Nobody wants to be killing babies…..I was pleased, a few years ago, to read that even young men were polling pro life…even if they’re not religious. The new discussion of this subject now that a new justice is being picked will awaken them again and people ARE then ‘forced’ to decide for themselves, in their own hearts….and murder is murder…..

    .While the LAW is definitely not a jurist’s dream…the law is BAD even in the eyes of pro abortion legislators…..if one goes ONLY ON THE WAY THE LAW’S BEING USED. … THAT is why it could be overturned, not on the premise of the laws.

    I keep hearing from legal minds on various news channels/shows, that it would go back to the States………I firmly believe a law on this subject should affect the WHOLE LAND.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. geeez2014 says:

    Re NoKo, looks like they’re playing Trump along as much as he thought he’d been playing them along….this is sad.


  5. jerrydablade says:

    It’s pretty cut and dried (and I’m not talking about baby parts laid out like a flea market on the surgical steel table at your local Planned Parenthood) that abortion is infanticide. As for polls with percentages of hand-wringers and excuse mongerers supporting abortion, I say to hell with them. As for the made up right to privacy, it is clear that that court already had the result they intended in hand before they had their interns write the opinion. I hold them in contempt of our Constitution and in violation of God and nature’s law.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. geeez2014 says:

    Jerry, that’s the POINT I wanted to talk about…the “RIGHT TO PRIVACY,” which legal minds on both sides agree with BOTH WAYS….

    I’m reading a David Baldacci book about the SCOTUS and interns and how much they do and it’s a little shocking to know so much is in these 24 yr old hands!!! Law clerks doing a LOT of the work and even contributing on decisions.


  7. oaxacadave says:

    Z… I love Baldacci and read a ton of his stuff. Which book is that? And he’s right. My Brother in Law clerked for a judge on the 6th circuit court of appeals and the hours he had to put in were incredible. The clerks indeed do a ton of the research for the final opinions.


  8. Mal Telloian says:

    We can discuss this till the cows come home (or the street lights come on, whichever is first!) but it still remains a case of God’s law vs Mans law and we all know which should prevail. The problem is it won’t solve the problem; only make it illegal because they’ll still get it done somewhere with huge risks to the mother. Making it legal would be kinda like providing sterile needles to druggies to help prevent the spread of Aids and other related risks.
    Its a conundrum, for sure.


  9. geeez2014 says:

    Mal, I couldn’t agree with you more….

    Dave, THE SIMPLE TRUTH is the one I’m reading now.
    I’ve read about 18 Lee Child books, too. Have you read him?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Baysider says:

    When Justice Thomas dissented in striking down the Texas sodomy statute he stated the law was “uncommonly silly” and if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to overturn it. BUT the decision hinged on ‘privacy’ again, and he stated then as he has many times that he found “no general right of privacy” or relevant liberty in the Constitution. Both Lawrence (Tx) and Roe used “privacy” as a shield to make up what they wanted to make up.

    Legitimate privacy defenses revolve around things like whether the police can search a cell phone without a warrant if they come into possession of it as a consequence of contact with the citizen, or taking thermal images of a home or bring a drug sniffing dog onto a property without warrants. Lots of 4th amendment cases, but not exclusively so.

    How they ever leapt over a great divide of logic to abortion is unsupportable. It would seem to me that you could invoke “privacy” to murder your obnoxious neighbor or solicit sex from a minor. Could not all sorts of mischief could be shielded under the rubric of privacy? Even not paying taxes?


    “The Supreme Court shouldn’t be made to rule on issues such as privacy rights. Let our legislature decide that. We are a democracy. We elect people to office. It’s their job, not ours. The Constitution is a very simple contract. The word ‘privacy’ is absent from its text. …. The regulation of privacy should not be a judicial function.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. geeez2014 says:

    Baysider, thanks so much….good stuff to consider….
    “The Constitution means what it ought to mean,” Scalia says…he was brilliant and he’s right; that is so wrong. And THAT is what both sides of the aisle really want, isn’t it. But MORE DEMS, I must admit…MORE DEMS WANT TO “FEEL GOOD” about the Constitution and it is NOT necessarily a FEEL GOOD DOCUMENT>.

    Seems to me there is NOTHING more American than PRIVACY…we’re FREE to do what we want………..but we HAVE TO PAY TAXES!! And yes, we could argue privacy against paying taxes!!
    It does seem to me like nothing is more private than deciding to end the life of the child within a woman……..and to say it isn’t is odd….but yes, if that’s predicated on PRIVACY, isn’t murdering your neighbor a rather private thing? Or, as you say, sex with a minor? “It was just between us..”

    Why does the line get drawn for ABORTION!?

    Because “that’s what it OUGHT to mean” Rubbish.

    Abortion will NOT go down, in my humble opinion……it could go to the states, which I think is silly for a lot of reasons…….but, as The Great One Levin says “It probably won’t even get to the Court again…they’ll not want to bother with it again.” And they CAN SAY “NO”.

    BUT, that leaves us with ABORTION….killing babies…………..in America. Sad.


  12. Baysider says:

    The American-ness of being ‘free to do what we want’ is more an issue of liberty, I’d posit, than privacy. Our constitution secures a lot of privacy – particularly in the 4th amendment. It made our home our castle and ensured we’d be secure in our papers and effects, and so on. But the issue of “general privacy” (which would cover the ridiculous examples I gave) is where all the trouble lies.

    This is totally off-topic, but if you want to hear Victor Davis Hanson at his BEST pleeze go here Victor D Hanson Explains Perfectly how Trump pulled off the biggest Upset in Presidential History when you have 45 minutes, and don’t stop at the Q&A.


  13. geeez2014 says:

    I totally understand that, and Scalia laid it out well, too, but I don’t see the big difference between LIBERTY and PRIVACY, personally. Except that the word PRIVACY is not used anywhere in the Constitution and LIBERTY certainly is. If we are free to do what we want, if we have liberty, we shouldn’t have to explain why we want the freedom we chose to be private.
    Sex with a minor is an excellent example, by the way, of why one can’t rely on PRIVACY to cover that sin… Or abortion.
    But, I’m going on FEELINGS here and I greatly resent those who do that about the Constitution, so……………!!!
    I guess I see their points………but technically disagree. I’m confused on it and find the discussion/thinking to be fascinating.

    Will try to listen to VDH when I have the minutes…thanks. He’s a genius. I had the pleasure of meeting him; he’s very shy and self-effacing and brilliant ……


  14. kid says:

    Baysider, “It would seem to me that you could invoke “privacy” to murder your obnoxious neighbor or solicit sex from a minor. Could not all sorts of mischief could be shielded under the rubric of privacy? Even not paying taxes?”

    There it is.

    My only thought on abortion is The constant struggle between good and evil that has been going on from day one here on this planet and will never stop. The evil ones have also totally perverted the idea of the non-existent “separation of Church and State”. These thing keep me convinced we share this existence with some serious evil and mutually exclusive dumbasses.


  15. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, yes, that tax one, murder, sex with a minor…all could be called PRIVATE.

    I think you nail the abortion situation: It’s GOOD v EVIL, not so much ROE v WADE. THAT is why it’s difficult to talk academically about it…….it’s a fight with evil and our higher selves who know killing children isn’t something anybody ought to allow let alone honor.

    Yes, too many have perverted it to read SEPARATION OF CHURCH FROM STATE….seriously evil, yes. And we’re reaping that evil harvest.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Sparky says:

    I enjoyed the article and have shared it. All this legal stuff makes my head swim though. It’s way out of my jurisdiction, brain-wise. All I know is that abortion is infanticide on a grand scale. And I do see your point about privacy. Truly, we have no privacy anymore. Modern technology and our narcissism has seen to that. Good discussion. I’m enjoying reading others much more intelligent remarks than mine.


  17. kid says:

    Thanks Z. Evil knows no bounds and it usually comes packaged in cute lovable boxes with labels like ‘Foster Home’, ‘Affordable Care Act’, ‘Planned Parenthood’, ‘Council for American islamic Relations’, etc. You can bet the biggest evil to come down the pike will probably be named something like ‘The totally orgasmic life enhacing organization for humans, animals, reptiles, insects, and aliens’. Or maybe just the “Love Organization” with pictures of thousands of smiling people on the cover. Watch out for that when it comes.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Baysider says:

    Well said, Kid. The constant struggle between good and evil has endless examples. 20-40 years ago we would not have thought possible the bogus concepts of ‘marriage equality’ and the multiplication of ‘genders’ (so much ‘confusion’ sown in our culture – and who is the author of that?)

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Mal says:

    Its all part of the “Hope & Change” promised by Obama. Some things are perfect enough to not need change. The Constitution like the Bible, fits that category. The first one, being made by man, allows amendments to fine-tune but not change its basic concept. The Bible doesn’t need that due to its Author.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I was asked to sit in on this discussion today concerning abortion.

    PLEASE READ BELOW, FOLKS, THERE IS MORE BELOW! I can’t prevent the huge negative space here! Thanks, Z


  21. geeez2014 says:

    Baysider “:and who is the author of that?” If even our churches hadn’t stopped talking about that “who,” we might not be in the sad place we’re in today.

    Kid, so well said……everything is labeled in lovable boxes…not that this term is lovable, but “PROGRESSIVES!?” I’ve always resented that somehow….like it’s more PROGRESSIVE to spread lies, mischaracterize, and push for socialism!

    Sparky, it’s a very tough, confusing issue, isn’t it.


  22. kid says:

    Baysider, Thanks. I read today that only 2/3rds of people are confidently heterosexual. I’m convinced all of this is just to get new blood for the homos if even temporary.


  23. kid says:

    Z, Progressive. Yes, a section of young people 18 to 24 or so? Maybe a larger section now inherently believe that currently accepted rules, norms, you name it must be defective and thrown out in favor of progressive thoughts and concepts. Very dangerous.

    ie. I was amazed how smart my parents became after I turned 25 (or fill in the age).


  24. kid says:

    Baysider, “Who is the enemy?” Darned interesting question actually. Agenda 21? Communism? Soros (money)? Bilderberg? (not my favorite pick, but in the money control category), islamics (not a bad choice. They’re evil beyond description but not stupid), All of the above (my choice)


  25. kid says:

    Add socialist economy countries trying not to die of the same fate as John Bonham, drummer of Led Zeppelin. (choking on their own vomit)


  26. oaxacadave says:

    Z… that’s Jack Reacher. Another fav is the Mitch Rapp series from Vince Flynn… he died a few years back but another guy continued the series. Interesting aside about the Flynn novels…

    He went to Hollywood to sell them as a movie deal. The Rapp character is a lot like Jack Ryan from the Tom Clancy novels. While many liked the idea, they said studios would never green light a character like Rapp. He’s too rough, too kick ass and too America first.

    I doubt even Clancy could get his movies made today. Even though I believe there’d be a good market for them.


  27. geeez2014 says:

    Dave, “Too America first” is scary to me. No other country on the planet has raised people who’d actually think that about their own country. But our liberal teachers are busy at it, aren’t they.
    No, books which show people fighting for their country won’t make good movies. Not anymore.

    Kid, “all of the above” and Baysider, I believe, means SATAN. Oh, WAIT! SAME THING!! 😉


  28. Baysider says:

    Yes to Z’s answer to kid. And yes, Clancy could not get his novels AS WRITTEN even years ago. I loved his books, but the one where they switched out bad guys from Islamic terrorists to neo-Nazis — that was the limit. I did not see it. In the South American drug story they made the assault by the cartel on American envoys FOLLOW the American assault on a cartel redoubt, not PRECEDE it as written in the book Big difference about who’s the bully. No, I doubt we’d see a Reacher novel we recognized. Superman, after all, is now a “citizen of the world” after renouncing his American citizenship and, presumably, his motto of fighting for truth, justice and the American way.


  29. geeez2014 says:

    Baysider..”REACHER WE RECOGNIZED?” Did you realize Tom Cruz played JACK REACHER, who is said in the book to be about 6’4″, 220 pounds, blue eyes, blond hair and gorgeous bulging muscles? And, it’s not like those attributes aren’t important to his character, they ARE, because he can ‘take out’ 6 guys with a chop here and a cut there and walk away……….anybody think a 5″10″ little skinny Cruz could even begin to play that part?
    The Superman thing was astonishing. WE ARE SUCH FOOLS.


  30. Baysider says:

    Z, Giant Swede Ingrid Bergman played short, dumpy Golda Meir beautifully. 🙂


  31. bocopro says:

    The only way Tom Cruise was EVER close to 5’10” was with 4″ lifts.


  32. geeez2014 says:

    Baysider, short dumpy Golda Meir never took down 6 huge muscly men. (Bergman couldn’t, either) When the person’s height and girth affect the story, a person who can’t do it, shouldn’t be it!

    Bocopro…I was being kind 🙂 You’re right, he probably isn’t that tall ….and CRUISE, not CRUZ! Thanks! I forgot!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s