More On Alito Versus Roe v. Wade
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, Supreme CourtThe paper trail on Samuel Alito continues to build where Roe v. Wade is concerned. Obviously this troubles me, as it does a majority of Americans.
1985 seems to be proving a fairly decisive year for Alito.
As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. helped devise a legal strategy to persuade the high court to restrict and eventually overturn Roe v. Wade , the historic decision legalizing abortion.In a memo disclosed yesterday that he wrote in 1985 as an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito recommended that the administration submit a brief to the Supreme Court, asking it to uphold a Pennsylvania law that imposed a variety of abortion restrictions and “make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade .”
Alito argued in the 17-page document that stepping into the case, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , would be a more effective strategy for President Ronald Reagan than a “frontal assault” on the landmark case and would not “even tacitly concede Roe ’s legitimacy.” Disagreeing with the administration’s position, the court struck down the Pennsylvania law the following year.
Alarming? Yes. Does this mean he’ll argue against Roe v. Wade if appointed? No. But again I ask, “Can we take that chance?”
If you want, read more from MSNBC.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 1st, 2005 and is filed under Abortion, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:28 am
More importantly, this memo shows exactly the mission and plan of strategy of the Republican right to remove Roe. And discredits any attempt by them to justify any anti-abortion legislation that they have proposed in recent years that limit a womans right to choose. This memo is very telling of the right, regardless of what it says about Alito
December 1st, 2005 at 1:05 pm
“But again I ask, “Can we take that chance?â€Â?”
Sure we can, even if Roe is overturned it would just revert back to the states to regulate as their constituents see fit. I don’t have a problem with that, that is where it should be. There might be some states that place what they believe to be common sense restrictions on abortions, other states will leave it as is, others might even remove some restrictions and still some may outlaw it unless the physical health of the mother is at stake.
We live in a big country with lots of different opinions, most of the time these opinons appear to be regional in nature, why shouldn’t individual states have their residents vote on the issue and settle it that way? I just don’t see what would be so horrible about that.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Deb-
What’s so horrible about that, is that a state should not be able to tell a woman how she should decide regarding her health options and life. It’s not a state’s rights issue, it is a constitutional issue.
Should a state have the right to tell its residents that it can not leave the state to have an abortion in a neighboring state? No. Then isn’t it an unnecessary burden to add to women who live away from the border of states that do have abortions? If your logic is to leave it up to communities to decide what is right for the women in their community in regards to abortion, my point is even simpler, leave it up to the individual. There is no state or federal law saying that a woman has to have an abortion, it’s up to her.
Your reaction that it should be up to the states is exactly what I was saying that the Right wants to wear away at Roe, till it’s basically gone, and this is apparent in this Alito’s questionaire. Grow some balls, take Roe head on. Of course that is a more direct, honest and harder battle for y’all.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Communities vote laws into being that regulate all kinds of stuff for us.
I don’t agree with lots of them, but the citizens in that community do. Part of the price of living in civilization is that we agree to be governed by agreed upon laws. Roe was bullshit law, the Constitution expressly says that rights not listed in the Constitution are left up to the States to regulate.
There isn’t anybody advocating that someone be ‘forced’ to go full term on a pregnancy if their health is in jeopardy.
You can always go to a state that does have them, you can either move there if that is a major concern or just travel there for the procedure. You act like you would have to row across the Atlantic or something, come on, you are talking several hours in a car or bus.
How many other things should we leave up the individuals? Seat belts? Car seats? Taxes? Paying for groceries? Stopping for ‘red lights’?
I live in a state that ‘forces’ me to wear a seat belt, when not wearing one would only cause injury to ‘me’ and yet you don’t want any type of regulation for a procedure that ‘always kills someone else’? A huge percentage of them just for the sake of convience….
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:43 am
Come, follow me…
December 4th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Not: don’t simply link to blogs through the comment section. Trackbacks are appropriate, but Fido’s is obviously not one, and the link leads to a very religious site.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
[...] And yes, the Casey case still bothers me quite a bit. As painful as it is for some men, respecting a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body is far more important than notifying the father. I’ve written more about this case and others here, here and here. [...]
August 8th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
A woman already has the right to choose . . . .
. . . she has the right to choose if she’s going to have unprotected sex.