10 Comments
User's avatar
SullivanSt's avatar

Everybody hates Roe v Wade, says everybody the NYT saw fit to include in their piece.

Hey, lamestream media, how about you check <a href="http:\/\/www.politico.com\/story\/2013\/01\/roe-v-wade-poll-shows-record-support-86548.html" target="_blank">the evidence</a> instead of cherrypicking quotes that will appear to support your predetermined conclusion?

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

In particular, it's not like <em>Griswold</em>'s precedent on a right to privacy wasn't the pillar on which <em>Roe</em> was built.

Expand full comment
PsycWench's avatar

Since gays don't generally get pregnant by accident, it seems that gay marriage should prevent abortions and therefore should be embraced.

Expand full comment
𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

It's that way on purpose. Filters out a large fraction of the dummies.

Expand full comment
chascates's avatar

Oh, sure. Overturn Roe v Wade but allow the Citizens United ruling to stand. If God watches over this nation He sure must take a lot of fucking naps.

Expand full comment
bobbert's avatar

IANAL, but I think the argument is that discovering the "right to privacy" was kind of an end-around, and that a firmer justification could be drawn directly from the equal-protection amendment.

Expand full comment
JustPixelz: IV%'er's avatar

Until recently SCOTUS was all men who hung out in their robes together. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Expand full comment
schmannity's avatar

It was a "bolt from the blue" because abortion was unknown before Roe v. Wade.

Expand full comment
JustPixelz: IV%'er's avatar

<i>"If only the court had let state legislatures do their jobs..."</i>

One such state was California. Governor Reagan signed the bill that legalized abortion several years before Roe v Wade.

Expand full comment
diogenez's avatar

“bolt out of the blue”?

Needs more "shoving it down out throats"!

Expand full comment