Suchergebnisse

We are not free to vote abortion up or down because Roe v. Wade in 1973 made "freedom of choice" a basic constitutional right. Last June in the Casey case only two members of the Supreme Court upheld Roe unequivocally. Three others sustained it, but only on grounds of precedent. This suggests that, had they been writing on a clean slate, at least one of them might have joined the four dissenters to form a new majority. Even this anemic victory for Roe is compromised; seven of the nine justices upheld all but one of five challenged state restrictions on abortion (all of which had been held invalid by the District Court).These anomalies spring from past perversions of the written Constitution, not from anything in the document itself. Here too "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." Roe v. Wade purports to rest on the Fourteenth Amendment provision that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This precept derives from the great settlemen at Runnymede in the year 1215. The crux of the matter was that the king (read government) could no longer punish his people at will, but only after guilt had been established via traditional trial procedures. No wonder this procedural right to a fair hearing found its way into the federal Bill of Rights (1791) and into every state constitution.

Abortion is the most divisive issue in America's culture wars, seemingly creating a clear division betweenconservative members of the Religious Right and people who align themselves with socially and politicallyliberal causes. In Defenders of the Unborn, historian Daniel K. Williams complicates the history of abortiondebates in the United States by offering a detailed, engagingly written narrative of the pro-life movement's mid-twentieth-century origins. He explains that the movement began long before Roe v. Wade, and traces its fifty-yearhistory to explain how and why abortion politics have continued to polarize the nation up to the presentday.

Many recent studies of the judiciary and public opinion adopt a model that views court decisions as aggravating division within the public. The authors question the image of Court as polarizer, arguing that the persuading influence of the U.S. Supreme Court is broader than contemporary authors acknowledge. Using a potential outcomes framework, the authors analyze public attitudes in response to the decision in Roe v. Wade, the original test case in Franklin and Kosaki's seminal article. The authors' evidence suggests that members of diverse groups who were aware of the Roe decision were more supportive of abortion than their decision-unaware counterparts.

Many recent studies of the judiciary and public opinion adopt a model that views court decisions as aggravating division within the public. The authors question the image of Court as polarizer, arguing that the persuading influence of the U.S. Supreme Court is broader than contemporary authors acknowledge. Using a potential outcomes framework, the authors analyze public attitudes in response to the decision in Roe v. Wade, the original test case in Franklin and Kosaki's seminal article. The authors' evidence suggests that members of diverse groups who were aware of the Roe decision were more supportive of abortion than their decision-unaware counterparts. Adapted from the source document.