O
otrrl
Guest
The US constitution allowed the supreme court (SC) to strike down anti-abortion laws across the US. Opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination fear overturning of the Roe v Wade decision. But, overturning that decision MIGHT mean that future law regarding abortion would go back to being decided by the states. On the other hand, Congress and the states could propose and pass a constitutional amendment to protect, regulate, or prohibit abortion.
What we have now is a weak wobbly “law” that was decided by justices who couldn’t decide when life began. That dubious decision was extended to include what we call partial birth abortion.
This method of “making law” in the SC is flawed and stop-gap at best. If the country wants to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right then it should do so by the “front door” of an amendment rather than as it did by a quickee SC decision. Going the route of an amendment is far more democratic than giving 9 justices so much power to “go” where the country had not gone before.
Likewise, in some fashion, the question of death will come up, about when death occurs. There too, I think the states should have much more control than they might have if the question goes to the SC.
What we have now is a weak wobbly “law” that was decided by justices who couldn’t decide when life began. That dubious decision was extended to include what we call partial birth abortion.
This method of “making law” in the SC is flawed and stop-gap at best. If the country wants to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right then it should do so by the “front door” of an amendment rather than as it did by a quickee SC decision. Going the route of an amendment is far more democratic than giving 9 justices so much power to “go” where the country had not gone before.
Likewise, in some fashion, the question of death will come up, about when death occurs. There too, I think the states should have much more control than they might have if the question goes to the SC.