10 Comments

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

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

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

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

Expand full comment

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

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

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

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

<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

“bolt out of the blue”?

Needs more "shoving it down out throats"!

Expand full comment