From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:07:35 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul24235405@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <athos-170792113154@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> > Fine, but abortion is not, contrary to whatever the Supreme Court says, a
> > fundamental right set out in the constitution.  I have a copy right here in
> > front of me, and it is simply not in there.  Period.
> 
> You misunderstand the Constitution then.  The right
> in question is not NOT in there, that means the Feds 
> cannot infringe upon that right.  The Constitution

The Federal Government isn't infringing on any rights if the
state prohibits abortion.  The claim of Roe v. Wade was that
the states were restricted through the 14th Amendment extending
the protections of the Ninth Amendment against the states.
(Problem: the principal authors of the 14th Amendment in Congress
made it clear that they intended for the first EIGHT amendments
to be extended -- not the first ten):

              The states,  declared Michigan  Sen. Jacob  Howard, who
              guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no
              longer infringe on the liberties the Bill of Rights had
              secured against  federal  violation;  henceforth,  they
              must  respect   "the  personal  rights  guaranteed  and
              secured by  the first  eight Amendments."   .i.Bingham,
              Rep. John; said much the same thing in the House.  Some
              portions of the Bill of Rights were of little moment in
              1866 (no one was threatening to quarter soldiers in a home
              without consent  of the  owner).   But it is abundantly
              clear that  Republicans wished  to give  constitutional
              sanction to  states' obligation  to  respect  such  key
              provisions as  freedom of  speech, the  right  to  bear
              arms, trial  by impartial  jury, and protection against
              cruel and  unusual punishment  and unreasonable  search
              and seizure.   The  Freedmen's Bureau had already taken
              steps to  protect these  rights, and  the Amendment was
              deemed necessary,  in part, precisely because every one
              of them  was being systematically violated in the South
              in 1866.[Eric Foner, _Reconstruction_, (New York,
              Harper & Row: 1988), 258-259]

A logical extension of Roe v. Wade would mean that the states
could do nearly nothing.  (Not that I would mind, of course...)

> doesn't spell out what you, as a citizen can and can't
> do, it spells out what the government can't do to you.
> The government can't interfere with your conduct unless
> the Constitution says it can, not the other way around.
> --
> Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059

It is important to understand that those actions of the government
that were in effect at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted,
even if apparently in conflict with the written text, are generally 
understood to be well-known exceptions:

              3. The  first 10  amendments to the constitution of the
              United States,  commonly known as the "Bill of Rights,"
              were not  intended to  lay down any novel principles of
              government, but  simply embodied certain guaranties and
              immunities which  we had  inherited  from  our  English
              ancestors, and  which had,  from time  immemorial, been
              subject to  certain well-recognized exceptions, arising
              from the  necessities of  the case.   In  incorporating
              these principles  into the  constitution, there  was no
              intention of  disregarding the  exceptions, which  have
              continued to  be recognized  as if  formally expressed.
              Thus, the  freedom of  speech and of the press (article
              1)  does   not  permit   the  publication   of  libels,
              blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications
              injurious to  public morals  or private reputation; the
              right of  the people  to keep and bear arms (article 2)
              is not  infringed by  laws prohibiting  the carrying of
              concealed weapons;  the provision  that no person shall
              be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a
              second trial,  if upon  the first trail the jury failed
              to agree,  or if  the verdict  was set  aside upon  the
              defendant's motion...[Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 
              275, 281, 282 (1897)]

Paul Johnson's _The Birth of the Modern_, a history of the development
of the modern world, 1815-1830, mentions that while abortion laws
remained on the books in the U.S. during this period, they were seldom
enforced, and it was difficult to get juries to convict.  This shows
both the presence of state laws, and that there was a tension between
the desire to outlaw abortion, and the recognition of its necessity.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics