Roe v. Wade was a decision by the Supreme Court with no reasonable Constitutional basis

The justices in Roe v. Wade based their decision off the supposed "right to privacy" that gives women the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion without state legislation interfering. Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: 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. [1] What portion of this includes the "right to privacy"? Well, believe it or not, it's this part. " . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty . . ." It's the liberty part. Apparently "liberty" includes the liberty to abort your baby. Now, keep in mind that in cases of judicial review the Supreme Court is supposed to decide whether law(s) violate the constitution"according to what the constitution was actually intended to mean. They cannot make up their own interpretation just to get the decision they want. Or at least they SHOULDN'T. However, that's what they did here. Now, for the purposes of this debate, in determining whether the SC decision was valid in light of original intent, there is one vital question we must answer: Was the right to have an abortion a "liberty" that was INTENDED to be protected by the phrase "No State shall . . . deprive any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law"? It may also be considered whether the baby is entitled to life under this amendment, but we shall confine ourselves to this issue. Now, if abortion was intended to be protected by the framers of this amendment, then we would expect to see wide support of abortion among legislators and the general public around 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted. The following is taken directly from the SC's discussion of the history of abortion: "Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century, the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased [for abortion]." The court then goes on to point out that by the end of the 1950's anti-abortion laws were in place in most of the US. Does it look like legislators approved of the woman's "protected liberty" of abortion around the 1860's? Indeed, the evidence indicates that around the time of the 14th Amendment legislators were starting to crack down harder on abortions. And what did the medical authorities at the time say? Direct quote from Roe v. Wade: "The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period. An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May, 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 778 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization": The first of these causes is a widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime -- a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening. The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life. . . . The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [p142] and to its life as yet denies all protection. Id. at 776. The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id. at 28, 78. In 1871, a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance, we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less. 22 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 268 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id. at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child -- if that be possible, and calling the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females -- aye, and men also, on this important question."" It seems that the legislators listened to the AMA, as the previous account of laws indicated. The court itself says very clearly, "The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century." The evidence is clear. In 1859 the AMA was indignantly supporting the suppression of "criminal abortion." From before that time until the 1950's public opinion, represented by the laws enacted by legislators, was steadily mounting against abortion. It should be obvious that any claim that the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended "liberty" to include the "liberty to abort your child" is preposterous. We may safely say such a possibility of graphic misinterpretation did not even enter their minds. If it had, they would surely have clarified the point, as no one in their day and age could have otherwise guessed their meaning! It was only through the Court's unprecedented act of judicial activism was this unjust decision arrived at. Over to you, Con. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... You can find Roe v. Wade online here: http://www.law.cornell.edu... It is long, but be assured the portions I qutoed are there.