Talk:Roe v. Wade

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Roe and Judicial Activism

This article's locked for editing, but I think it might be worth mentioning the dangerous influence of judicial activism present in this ruling and the dangerous precedent it sets somewhere in the introduction. Can we unlock it or can a sysop add this? NTemple 21.22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Seeing as this page is locked, can someone fix the last sentence of the intro? It doesn't make grammatical sense. Thanks - JamesCA, June 14, 2011

I've deleted the comment about Roe being a lesbian. It seems the kind of thing a reference is needed for. One for her real name would be nice too. lil_cain 03.43, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

LOL! Great edit, Lil Cain. If she really was a lesbian, it's funny that she got pregnant. I would think a cite would be needed for that...--AmesG 22:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I've also edited out the section about no one caring about the judgement for a time. Even if it was not widely known(something I don't have the first notion about), I'm sure a substaintal minority of those affected did care at the time(I am of course open to being rebutted on this, but with references preferably) also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion lil_cain 03.46, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion

Added the meat of Blackmun's opinion along with re-added the section on controversy. Controversy is, obviously, informative as to the social ramifications of the opinion.-AmesGyo! 16:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade. Reginod, your edit is not correct. Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters. RSchlafly 00:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters, but that doesn't mean there's no meaningful distinction between them in the decision. Blackmun's decision said that, in the first trimester, there's no compelling state interest in abortion, and the doctor and his patient are free to terminate the pregnancy without interference from the state. After the first trimester, according to the decision, the state is free to regulate abortion so far as it relates to the health of the mother...the state can demand that the abortionist be licensed, that abortions must be performed in a hospital, or other things like that. After the fetus is viable, according to the decision, the state is free to even ban abortions, unless an abortion would be neccesary to "preserve the life or health of the mother." So while Roe v Wade allows abortions in all three trimesters, it also, as the pregnancy goes on, places more restrictions as to when and how an abortion can be performed.--Steve 01:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
That is just not correct. Some states have tried to ban third trimester abortions, and the courts have thrown out the ban ever time. Third trimester abortions cannot be banned under Roe v Wade. RSchlafly 01:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
First of all, my edit replaced the questionable language with the language of the Court. I did not speculate about what the Court’s language meant in practical terms, I simply said what the Court said. My edit is truer than what was there before, as what was there before put the language you are suggesting in the mouth of Blackmun where it does not belong. Second, the section I edited was about the opinion in Roe v. Wade, not the way that opinion has been interpreted—you are talking about what has been done in reading the opinion, not what the opinion actually says. Third, most of the bans that have been struck down have been struck down because they do not include an exception for the mother’s health (the Court said that the States can ban abortion in the third trimester “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”--language I included in m edit) Fourth, a number of restrictions short of total bans have been upheld under Roe v. Wade. For example, waiting periods were upheld in Planed Parenthood v. Casey and parental consent and/or notification laws were upheld in Bellotti v. Baird. Finally, you are simply wrong, see Gonzales v. Carhart where the Court upheld a total ban on partial-birth abortions (while explicitly not overruling Roe).--Reginod 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
There is only one way to read Roe v Wade, and that is to require a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months. That is the only way anyone has ever read it. That Blackmun quote is misleading. RSchlafly 12:35, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I see we are on misleading again, but I won’t be bated by you this time.
The quote comes from the Courts official ruling, it comes from Roe v. Wade, it is part of Roe v. Wade, it is, in fact what Roe v. Wade says. I understand that you don’t like what it says and that you like what it is read to say even less, but that doesn’t change the fact that the words I put on the page are, in fact, what Roe v. Wade says (if there is only one way to read Roe v. Wade, I hasten to add, those words CAN’T be misleading as they are the words of Roe v. Wade).--Reginod 12:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Your addition seems, to me, to be about right. I would change “All state regulations of late-term abortions have since been found unconstitutional.” to “All state-level total bans of late-term abortions, and late-term abortion procedures, have since been found unconstitutional.” (Since, as I noted above, some regulations of abortion, including late term abortion, have been upheld). And I would change “This was the first significant abortion regulation that the Supreme Court has allowed since Roe v Wade” to “This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade”. This avoids judging the significance of the other regulations that have been upheld (both sides of the debate have called them significant, so I would avoid such sweeping language to the contrary).--Reginod 13:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Seeing no objections, I will make the suggested changes.--Reginod 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Article incorrectly states that "Roe provided the underpinning for cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut." This is impossible since Griswold predated Roe by about 8 years. One would likely be correct in saying that Griswold provided the underpinning for Roe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjscool (talk)