Texas Embryo Case May Overturn Roe v Wade!

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAL

Guest
…Roman vs. Roman now rests with the Supreme Court of Texas, one of a number of divorce cases nationwide in which the custody dispute has revolved around microscopic clumps of cells that are considered - by most states, at least - to be property and not human life…

As the cases proliferate, the odds grow that the issue may eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Augusta and Randy Roman said in recent interviews that they intended to appeal to the higher court if they lost in Texas.

Their lawyers believe such a case could provide the court with one of several means to undermine another Texas reproductive rights case,*** Roe vs. Wade***, the 1973 decision that guaranteed a right to abortion. In that case, the justices explicitly avoided speculating on when life begins, but asserted that the unborn are not “persons” as encompassed by the 14th Amendment. Absolved of the need to balance the rights of the unborn against those of a pregnant woman, the court found that a woman’s right to privacy allowed her to terminate a pregnancy.

However, the Roe decision came five years before the birth of the first test-tube baby. Socially conservative legal theorists, buoyed by the court’s recent decision to uphold [the partial-birth abortion] ban… believe a case involving frozen embryos could give an increasingly conservative court one vehicle for reconsidering the rights of the unborn, and to do so apart from the issue of a woman’s right to control her own body…

MORE…

jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/la_times_tx_emb.html#comments
 
Let us hope for this. I am terribly disappointed the Republicans made no real attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment to declare protection of children from conception. Such an amendment would take the issue out of the courts hands. To me the politicians are really trying to get the courts to make law not enforce law.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
I am terribly disappointed the Republicans made no real attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment to declare protection of children from conception.
Click to expand...
It would have been a waste of time, because it wouldn’t even have gotten 50% of either house of Congress, much less the supermajority needed to pass an amendment. I’m a very pro-life Republican, but I hate when they propose things that are only symbolic. The court created this problem, and the court will eventually fix it, just like they eventually corrected the problem they created with the Dred Scott decision.
 
This case is not being decided on the merits of personhood ect. The Romans signed a legal contract, which is the very thing in dispute.

texasfamilylawblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/contract-law-found-to-govern-disposition-of-frozen-embryos-in-divorce/
In March 2002, the parties signed various documents at the center, located in Webster, including an Informed Consent for Cryopreservation of Embryos (the embryo agreement) in which, in paragraph 2, the parties authorized storage of their embryos in a frozen state until such time as the center deemed it appropriate to transfer them to the wife’s uterus, and both husband and wife agreed to the transfer, according to the opinion. Section 10 stated that the parties authorized that the embryos would be discarded in case of divorce. The agreement contained a provision allowing the parties to withdraw consent to the disposition of the embryos and to discontinue participation in the program.
Click to expand...
The contract was immensely clear. Given that the Legislature, neither Texas’ nor Congress, have addressed this issue, then the contract becomes the de facto standard. Congress really has no say in the matter because this is a State issue, and does not affect interstate or foreign Commerce.

Any Federal court will rule almost identically to lower courts, that is, leaving the decision of what becomes of frozen embryos to the state Legislature. No court is going to venture that far out to decide that the embryos have to be implanted. They are going to be very mindful of the fact that all States have varying regulations on IVF, fertility contracts, and embryo storage, and that a single Federal decision is not warranted.
 
BioCatholic said:
This case is not being decided on the merits of personhood ect. The Romans signed a legal contract, which is the very thing in dispute.

texasfamilylawblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/contract-law-found-to-govern-disposition-of-frozen-embryos-in-divorce/

The contract was immensely clear. Given that the Legislature, neither Texas’ nor Congress, have addressed this issue, then the contract becomes the de facto standard. Congress really has no say in the matter because this is a State issue, and does not affect interstate or foreign Commerce.

Any Federal court will rule almost identically to lower courts, that is, leaving the decision of what becomes of frozen embryos to the state Legislature. No court is going to venture that far out to decide that the embryos have to be implanted. They are going to be very mindful of the fact that all States have varying regulations on IVF, fertility contracts, and embryo storage, and that a single Federal decision is not warranted.
Click to expand...
Can we Pleeze cross the bridge and get over this issue. Texas got us into this mess to begin with. Let the states decide
 
Steve_M said:
It would have been a waste of time, because it wouldn’t even have gotten 50% of either house of Congress, much less the supermajority needed to pass an amendment. I’m a very pro-life Republican, but I hate when they propose things that are only symbolic. The court created this problem, and the court will eventually fix it, just like they eventually corrected the problem they created with the Dred Scott decision.
Click to expand...
So were the Republicans not really pro-life? We had a republican majority. Do you really believe not a single democrat would have voted pro-life? Did you know every survey reveals most voter are pro-life. This issue was not created by courts. This is created by a legislation void which the republicans made no attempt to fill during their years as a majority party.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
So were the Republicans not really pro-life? We had a republican majority. Do you really believe not a single democrat would have voted pro-life? Did you know every survey reveals most voter are pro-life. This issue was not created by courts. This is created by a legislation void which the republicans made no attempt to fill during their years as a majority party.
Click to expand...
All Republicans are not pro life. Most are, but more are pro abortion than Democrats are pro life. Again, you’d need a supermajority for an ammendment. Abortion on demand was made legal by the courts, not by congress. Virtually every survey shows almost a 50 -50 split on the support of abortion. Where you do get a majority opposed to it is on the question of abortion as a method of birth control. What has been done by the Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican President is to change the make up of the Supreme Court.
 
Steve_M said:
All Republicans are not pro life. Most are, but more are pro abortion than Democrats are pro life. Again, you’d need a supermajority for an ammendment. Abortion on demand was made legal by the courts, not by congress. Virtually every survey shows almost a 50 -50 split on the support of abortion. Where you do get a majority opposed to it is on the question of abortion as a method of birth control. What has been done by the Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican President is to change the make up of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
The problem I have is this is not possible, and the Republican law makers know that. Abortion is legal because the Constitution does not make it illegal and clearly allows all non-listed activates to be banned from government control. The Republican’s are trying to push the court to define when life begins instead of passing Constitutional legalization which defines such, or bans abortion. Concerning surveys when I get some time I’ll look again I have always and heard the majority of the public are always against abortion. As is Jane Doe!
 
Texas_Roofer said:
The problem I have is this is not possible, and the Republican law makers know that. Abortion is legal because the Constitution does not make it illegal and clearly allows all non-listed activates to be banned from government control. The Republican’s are trying to push the court to define when life begins instead of passing Constitutional legalization which defines such, or bans abortion. Concerning surveys when I get some time I’ll look again I have always and heard the majority of the public are always against abortion. As is Jane Doe!
Click to expand...
The courts will have to define it, because there won’t be a supermajority in congress either way in our life time. We already have laws against murder, just as we already had the Constitution when the court ruled in Dred Scott. They eventually corrected that mistake. In the same way, they’ll eventually correct the mistake of Roe v Wade. I keep making that point, because I think it’s a good analogy. Murder is already illegal, just as citizens already had rights. The courts determined slaves weren’t entitled to Constitutional protection, just as they determined unborn children weren’t entitled to those same protections. Let’s hope and pray that the unborn are given those protections soon…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top