Is it possible for someone to tell me (WITHOUT DEBATE!)...

[6_Time_Momma]

I hear supporters of abortion rights say that abortion is "a constitutional right". I am wondering what in the constitution would be seen as giving a consititutional right to abortion?

(I am pro-life and vehemently against abortion, but I am asking in genuine curiousity, not trying to start anything).

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

 

[RadioNate]

Well currently, it is protected under the constitution so that makes it a 'right.' As I understand it Rowe V Wade was put together using a series of constitutional arguments not just one specific reference. The strongest is privacy rights.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I understand what you are asking Kristy---and while on yourside--I can see the logic and answer that perhaps this Amendment has something to do with it:


Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


One can make the argument as we do that the aborted fetus is a person--but in the life of the mother (one of the many arguments for having a choice)---medicine does practice to protect her life and decisions can be made that are in her favor and not in the favor of the child.


But the other arguments--didn't find anything.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The strongest is privacy rights.

Not to sound dumb--but do privacy rights appear in the constitution?

I thought we had them as a result of interpreting the constitution.

 

[Jennasis]

I would imagine any answer given to you would prompt a debate since you are "vehemently against abortion"...

However, may I suggest you research the Roe v. Wade decision and read the supreme court justices opinions. That may help a bit.

 

[justhat]

I can't say for sure what the answer to your question would be, but I think understanding the answer lies in the difference of viewpoints. Pro-choice people see abortion as a woman's right to choose what goes on with her own body, but pro-life people see it as invading the rights of another individual (the unborn child). So my interpretation of the 'constitutional right' stance is that the woman has the right to control what happens to her own body. But that's just my thoughts, having never really heard that constitution stuff as I try to avoid abortion debates.

 

[mickeyboat]

http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/SocialIssues/Abortion\Abortion__Right_To_Choose-1.htm

There is voluminous constitutional debate on this issue. Most articles you will find are politically slanted, and you can find something to support almost any position you hold. The right is derived from a right to privacy which was derived from the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights.

Denae

 

[6_Time_Momma]

I would imagine any answer given to you would prompt a debate since you are "vehemently against abortion"...

However, may I suggest you research the Roe v. Wade decision and read the supreme court justices opinions. That may help a bit.

How wrong you are (at least from me). As I said, I am genuinely curious and am not a liar, so I'm not starting a debate or trying to. As to researching Roe vs. Wade, done that(not for hours on end or such). Still don't quite grasp where the const right comes in. Of course, I don't understand all the legal-ese either.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I would imagine any answer given to you would prompt a debate since you are "vehemently against abortion"...

However, may I suggest you research the Roe v. Wade decision and read the supreme court justices opinions. That may help a bit.

Didn't even think to look that up--Kristy here's the explanation I found:

[Transcripts of Oral Argument (#1) (#2)] the landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy. More specifically, the Court held that: (1) the Court had jurisdiction; (2) Roe's case was not moot, despite the birth of her child, because the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review;" (3) the right to privacy includes the right to abortion; (4) since abortion is a fundamental right, state regulation must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means the state must show it has a "compelling interest" in having the law; (5) the word "person" in the 14th Amendment, does not apply to the unborn; (6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life.

Roe, the only successful suit of a group of test cases designed to challenge validity of the Texas abortion statute, was brought by Norma McCorvey (alias "Jane Roe") and her lawyer, Sarah Weddington. It was heard twice by the Court because the retirement of Black and Harlan had left two vacancies. With Powell and Rehnquist added, the case was then re-heard. Though Douglas was rightly the intellectual father of Roe, it was Blackmun who worked feverishly behind the scenes to build a consensus for the ruling that he would ultimately write for the Court. [Recently released internal memoranda, while shedding fascinating light on the workings of the Roe Court, have also resulted in stark criticism of the majority's conduct.] The two dissenters, Rehnquist and White would champion the cause against Roe for more than twenty years to come. Though legally it has been eclipsed by Casey, it remains as the essential centerpiece of constitutional jurisprudence on abortion.

So in answer to the OP--

Right to privacy as stated earlier...

And the unborn aren't constitutionally people--though the state can have a compelling interest and say in what happens to baby at 6 months gestation or greater and can prohibit abortions at that time (and hold up to con-law).

Link:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm

 

[RadioNate]

Not to sound dumb--but do privacy rights appear in the constitution?

I thought we had them as a result of interpreting the constitution.

That's what I ment. The privacy interpertation of various constitutional references.

I was unclear. I was treading VERY carefully so I wasn't really expanding.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's what I ment. The privacy interpertation of various constitutional references.

I was unclear. I was treading VERY carefully so I wasn't really expanding.

That's okay--someone expanded later and it made sense. I just happened to google and was looking at the amendments at the time and was going when I couldn't find the privacy stuff.

 

[ducklite]

Generally speaking, a fetus is not given any legal "rights" as a human being until it's takes a breath. Therefore one is not denying a right of any other human, because the law doesn't recognize the fetus as such.

I'm vehemently pro choice, although I could never personally have an abortion. I strongly believe that any legally competent adult woman has every right to make--without interference from the courts or anyone else--any decisions regarding her health or body. It is as someone else stated, a right to medical privacy--a right which is granted under several laws.

Anne

 

[golfgal]

I understand what you are asking Kristy---and while on yourside--I can see the logic and answer that perhaps this Amendment has something to do with it:


Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


One can make the argument as we do that the aborted fetus is a person--but in the life of the mother (one of the many arguments for having a choice)---medicine does practice to protect her life and decisions can be made that are in her favor and not in the favor of the child.


But the other arguments--didn't find anything.

If you want to get technical, abortion ISN'T a constitutional right although it is the law in this country that women are allowed to get abortions. There was not a constitutional amendment made to give that right to women, just a law. Since no one has "legally" defined when life starts and no one EVER will because of the abortion issue, it isn't technically protected by the Constitution. You also don't even really need to define when life starts since you can't be a citizen of a country if you aren't born.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If you want to get technical, abortion ISN'T a constitutional right although it is the law in this country that women are allowed to get abortions. There was not a constitutional amendment made to give that right to women, just a law. Since no one has "legally" defined when life starts and no one EVER will because of the abortion issue, it isn't technically protected by the Constitution. You also don't even really need to define when life starts since you can't be a citizen of a country if you aren't born.

True--neither is the right to privacy as stated early--it is just constitutionally protected.

I'm pro-life--but I have been respectfully trying to answer from the legal/pro-choice side in the best of my interpretation to help out a friend who is trying to understand. I didn't think I was doing too shabby (at least for someone not pro-choice in the first place). Reference my post #10--when I did find "something".

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Okay, so it has to do with medical privacy, which I guess would fall under privacy. Then, why for example wouldn't everything else be covered medically? What I mean is, an 11 yo. girl can't go to a plastic surgeon and say "I want a breast enhancement. Here's the money, let's go." The doctor would require consent, etc. So if the 11 yo in question sued, would she be protected constitutionally to be allowed to have the breast enhancement (or reduction as the case may be)? (Insert surgical procedure of your choice)

Edited to add : I guess I am using this example because I saw a story that NH notification laws are being challenged and I know some states have no notification laws.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't know Kristy. I know at age 17--I went to go get a shot for school that I was required to get--and I couldn't get one without my mom present.

Minors cannot enter into legal contracts and such and cannot sign for themselves which is why they cannot do things such as cosmetic surgery and such.

However--I think there is court cases that provide the back up on why a minor should be able to get an abortion without parental notification. However--like anything else...she should be appointed a guardian and not be able to make that decision solely on her own as she is too young to make such a decision unless they wish to give minors right to privacy on all of their medical care.

I mean--an 11yo boy wouldn't be able to go get a vasectomy on his own.

 

[ducklite]

I mean--an 11yo boy wouldn't be able to go get a vasectomy on his own.

But maybe it's not such a bad idea...

Anne (just kidding!)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

But maybe it's not such a bad idea...

Anne (just kidding!)

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Or for another medical procedure, wouldn't physician assisted suicide be theoretically covered under the same "right" that protects abortion?


(oooo wait, that's another potential egg shell subject, huh? Maybe we'd better stick to the cosmetic enhancements and vasectomies! )