From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:24:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.212738.24181@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1bhrs9INNc9a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>    (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
> Ron and Bill: >>
> 
> >>>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
> >
> >>> What was forced upon you?
> >
> >>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
> >>perfectly fine option.
> >
> >Scuse, please.  How is this forced upon you?  I don't see you accepting
> >this particular set of beliefs......
> 
> It's forced on me because I am a member of the society in which the
> ruling was made.  The ruling clearly (IMO) considers abortion to be
> an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy, and as a matter of
> constitutional law, implies that this is a belief endorsed *by the
> entire society*.  

No Bill, that is not at all an accurate understanding of the
Roe v Wade decision.  The decision does not say anything about
the acceptability of abortion in the United States.  It does
determine that the Bill of Rights provides certain rights which
require protection of a right to privacy and, in the context
of abortion, the right to obtain an abortion up until a
certain point in the pregnancy, at which point state interests
become more compelling and the state has a right to regulate
and, to some extent, prohibit abortions.

As for your statement about consititutional law, that is your
inference but not the ruling's implication.  I recently read
a story about some grammar school students who tried an experiment
as part of their history class.  They canvassed a neighborhood,
in an admittedly unscientific poll, read the residents the
First Amendment, said it was an amendment to the Constitution
that they were proposing, and asked for signatures.  The
majority of residents not only did not recognize the
amendment, but were opposed to it and wouldn't sign.  While
I would not draw any definitive conclusions about it, it does
indicate that we shouldn't draw conclusions about whether
our "entire society" endorses any beliefs or rulings embodied
in either Supreme Court rulings or constitutional law.

[..]
Bill> >> All law endorses a value or set of values.
> >
Adrienne> >Yeah, right.  Like driving on the right hand side exhibits an 
Adrienne> >internalization that left-handed people are really dangerous,  
Adrienne> >uh huh.
> 
> I know you don't agree with this, but the attorneys I know not
> only concur with my comment, they indicate that it's acknowledged
> in law school.  Any law students that would like to comment?

I agree with you here, Bill.  On the other hand, that does
not say which values are being endorsed.  In the case of Roe
v Wade, the value is that of bodily autonomy and, more
importantly, the value of trying as best we can to adhere to
the principles of constitutional law.  I am sure, you being
the patriot that you are, that you do not oppose adherence to
the principles of constitutional law.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42705 talk.politics.guns:22159 alt.conspiracy:11291 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5412 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6896 talk.bizarre:34175