From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:10:20 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct12.050855.28435@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>>>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>>...
>>>Spike Burkhardt
>>
>>Where is this states in the Bill of Rights?
>
>The rights to life, liberty, and property are not guaranteed in the
>Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10, Amendment 27, and one other article
>that was not, and probably will not be passed).  These rights
>are protected in the Fourteenth Amendment.
>
>The problems with invoking the Fourteenth Amendment for the pro-life
>argument are:
>
>1.  Do the unborn qualify as "persons" [constitutionally]?
>
>2.  Do the unborns' rights supercede those of the born?  Roe v. Wade out-
> lawed outlawing abortions because of the Fourth Amendment, and how it ap-
> plies to women.  Saying that the rights of the unborn, or even the rights
> of minors, supercede those of competent adults could be a nasty legal pre-
> cedent that would open another ugly can of worms.

The following comes from a review, by Lucas A. Powe, of a new book, _The
Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States_, ed. Kermit L.
Hall (Oxford, 1992).  Hall is Professor of History and Law at the University
of Tulsa, OK; Powe is at the University of Texas and authored _The Fourth
Estate and the Constitution_.

"As probably everyone knows, the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision
found a woman's right to an abortion to be founded on the constitutional
right to privacy.  What many people do not know is that the word 'privacy'
appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Nevertheless, as this tour de force
shows, privacy is implicit in the American constitutional order and has many
different meanings.  For example ... A third example, associated with Roe v.
Wade, is individual autonomy.  All of these have a constitutional pedigree
even if privacy itself does not appear.  Thus, 'there will always be a con-
stitutional "right to privacy," whoever the members of the Supreme Court
might be or whatever the particular intellectual trends of a given political
moment.  But its meaning and scope will always be in flux.'"  [The quote
beginning 'there will always be' is from the book's entry on Privacy.]

It seems to be the opinion of the editors of this new book that, based on
the actual Supreme Court records of Roe v. Wade, that Roe v. Wade is based
neither on the 4th nor the 14th Amendments, but on the implicit constitu-
tional right to privacy.


21 days to go!

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52625 ca.politics:8744