Does the Public Understand Roe v Wade?

[Danzig]

gotta love that google. some excerpts on the history of abortion in the u.s.:


Abortion Was Legal
Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women.
and

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.


1.2 million a year before roe v wade. the current estimate? 1.2 million a year, with a higher population than what was in the late 60's.


so, blame scotus if you wish. or recognize that the only thing that changed pre-roe to post-roe, is criminality. oh, and safety of course. but who cares about safety, we're talking about women here.

[Danzig]

didn't know about this case:

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.


that is crazy!! it was illegal for unmarried folks to use bc. my my oh my. yeah, we're the 'intelligent' species alright.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird


there's the link to the article about the ruling. and beware, those of you who say that the right to privacy isn't an enumerated right-the equal protection clause is what was used to produce this ruling, and others, as well. anyone want to go down that slippery slope? we yelp about losing rights-but i guess some are trying to make sure others suffer exactly that!

[GenuineRisk]

And if I haven't been clear - it is the current state of the law that I find objectionable. That law - decided by nine unelected Supreme Court justices in 1973 - has led other citizens down this path. In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.

No, they had self-induced abortions by jamming a coat hanger into their uterus, often perforating themselves and dying very grim deaths. Or were cut to bits by back-alley abortionists. Or stuck an electrical cord into their uterus and electrocuted themselves. Or drank bleach. Or... there is ample documentation of the numerous, gruesome ways women killed themselves in attempts to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies. Many of these women left children and spouses behind.

I had a friend who was in ballet school in the late 1960's and she told me it quickly got around the school that there was a doctor who would provide abortions to any girl who needed one, no questions asked. Because his own daughter had gotten pregnant, was too afraid to tell him, and died from a back-alley abortion. He wanted to make sure no other parent lost a daughter the way he had.

Roe v Wade, by the way, does not guarantee a right to abortion at any point; it says states may make no law unduly limiting access during the first trimester and permits increasing levels of difficulty during the second and third trimester, which is why it is extremely difficult to get a late-term abortion. The awful thing about that being that late-term abortions are very rare, and are sought out by people who want the child but have discovered that there is something seriously wrong with the fetus. As in, brain outside the body level of wrong. So our current government sees fit to make an awful, painful decision for parents even harder, and to limit women's access to safe care in such situations. Yay small government! (weeps)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So our current government sees fit to make an awful, painful decision for parents even harder, and to limit women's access to safe care in such situations. Yay small government! (weeps)

Government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus and legislate government-forced childbirth, but not to take away the right to have AK47's and multiple-round ammunition.

Yeah. Yay