Not exactly. What RvW did was use prior precedent: (Griswold v Connecticut) to basically say that abortion was a private medical matter between an abortion doctor and his "patient." Abortion is de facto permitted by no Government, State or Federal, having the legal standing to know about it.
Griswold v Connecticut is where it gets loopy. And it's really the big enchilada that needs to get overturned if America is going to return to any sort of rational Constitutional law. The precedent set in GvC is that there are overall themes to Rights in the Constitution and in the Amendments, and that these themes imply specific Rights not specifically stated.
You may have heard the word "penumbra" used here, which is a "indelible in the hippocampus" way (by which I mean, insufferable, arrogant, and tryhard) of saying "gray area." The argument was literally that the words of the Constitution cast a shadow, and in this shadowy gray area are important things left unsaid but still just as important as the things specifically written. These unwritten things "emanate" (another word used to cloud rather than clarify) outward, going on to suggest more and more unwritten text.
If you have a brain, you understand this is retarded. It renders the Constitution completely meaningless. This perspective gives the Constitution unlimited power, or strips it of all power, depending on how some witch-doctor in a black robe squints at it. In the case of Roe v Wade, the decision was that though the Constitution doesn't state that there is a right to this medical privacy, privacy is implied through creative interpretation.
This new decision on RvW isn't the revocation of a Constitutional right, it's just fixing this stupidity about abortion being under the "penumbra" of implied privacy that "emanates" from Constitutional amendments that very clearly have nothing to do with abortion.
Not exactly. What RvW did was use prior precedent: (Griswold v Connecticut) to basically say that abortion was a private medical matter between an abortion doctor and his "patient." Abortion is de facto permitted by no Government, State or Federal, having the legal standing to know about it.
Griswold v Connecticut is where it gets loopy. And it's really the big enchilada that needs to get overturned if America is going to return to any sort of rational Constitutional law. The precedent set in GvC is that there are overall themes to Rights in the Constitution and in the Amendments, and that these themes imply specific Rights not specifically stated.
You may have heard the word "penumbra" used here, which is a "indelible in the hippocampus" way (by which I mean, insufferable, arrogant, and tryhard) of saying "gray area." The argument was literally that the words of the Constitution cast a shadow, and in this shadowy gray area are important things left unsaid but still just as important as the things specifically written. These unwritten things "emanate" (another word used to cloud rather than clarify) outward, going on to suggest more and more unwritten text.
If you have a brain, you understand this is retarded. It renders the Constitution completely meaningless. This perspective gives the Constitution unlimited power, or strips it of all power, depending on how some witch-doctor in a black robe squints at it. In the case of Roe v Wade, the decision was that though the Constitution doesn't state that there is a right to this medical privacy, privacy is implied through creative interpretation.
This new decision on RvW isn't the revocation of a Constitutional right, it's just fixing this stupidity about abortion being under the "penumbra" of implied privacy that "emanates" from Constitutional amendments that very clearly have nothing to do with abortion.