From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: jsp@uts.amdahl.com's message of 27 Jul 92 20:30:31 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<SLAGLE.92Jul24235405@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<0bEe03P0469C00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:36:01 GMT

In article <0bEe03P0469C00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

> }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
> }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.

> I think you're the one who doesn't quite understand the Constitution.  It
> is not accurate to say that "it spells out what the government can't do to
> you".  Some of the Amendments do specifically put limits on governmental
> power over the citizens, but the body of the Constitution is more concerned
> with spelling out the powers of the FEDERAL government with the intent that
> what power was not explicitly given to the Feds was reserved to the states.
> It was clearly the intent of the Framers that the individual states would 
> have powers "not delegated to the United States", as indicated in the tenth 
> Amendment.

I think you're splitting hairs here.  When I said that the
Constitution spells out what they can't do to you, I was
referring to those specific amendments that do just that.  I also
did say that I was talking about the Feds.  Most of the document
deals with defining what the (Federal) government is to be, so I
was not concerned with those parts.  Also, the Constitution is
vague on the question of who else gets the powers and rights.
You say that the States have them, but the document says that
they are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The last clause is important.  Also, it is the ninth that is
a stronger statement of this matter, and it says that the rights
are "retained by the people."

But you seem to agree with my basic point that the (Federal)
government can't interfere unless they have some authority granted
to them under the Constitution, so I don't see why you are
quibbling, since that was the point of my statements:  that the
absence of a specific right "enumerated" in the Constitution
does not imply that we have no such right.

> I have to agree with Mr. Eames that there is no right to abortion nor a
> right to privacy explicitly stated in the Constitution.  There is also
> nothing in the document that I can construe as to giving Federal government 
> the power to prohibit the states from making abortion illegal.  Therefore, 
> much as I am strongly pro-choice, I find myself forced to say that I believe 
> that the original Roe vs. Wade decision was CONSTITUTIONALLY incorrect.

The "right to privacy" is a sticky question.  It's certainly
not explicitly mentioned, but several statements can be
construed to imply it.

As for Roe vs. Wade, if you are referring to the reliance on
the artificial trimester plan, then while I would say that it
is a workable solution, I agree that it doesn't seem to have
much Constitutional support.  My position, should anyone care,
is that the (Federal) government has no business regulating
abortion.  That means that they must not make law that prohibits
it, but also that they must not make law that establishes it
either.  It's simply not a matter for government action.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA