I know nothing of this particular article’s accuracy, or its bias. Just wanted to respond to points it makes for reasons for re-opening the case:
He asserts three major arguments for reopening and overturning the case on the basis of Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief on the basis of new evidence, errors or fraud:
The Roe v. Wade decision deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions and exposed them to a much greater risk of being pressured into unwanted abortions. Studies, he says, indicate between 30 and 60 percent of abortions result from the pregnant woman submitting to pressure from her male partner, parents, physicians or others.
This does not surprise me at all. I’ve actually watched a rather matronly ob/gyne suggest very strongly that it was unnecessary for her patients to carry through with the pregnancy. I was amazed as the girls had said that they were not interested in abortion because of their beliefs and that they had other plans rather than terminating the life of their unborn child. Still she pushed the issue. Unbelievable.
At the same time, i don’t believe that this “deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions” - in fact i believe that the opposite is true - that fewer women are seeking back-street abortion clinics (i.e. guys with coat hangers) and obtaining actual medical treatment.
Parker will present affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects. This is 1,000 times more evidence than presented in the original case, he says. Also, new scientific evidence indicates abortion is associated with more physical and psychological complications for women than were known about in 1973. In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women’s lives.
This is something that is left out of the debate far too often. We practice “evidence-based medicine” in almost every aspect. We consider social-psych issues of every patient. Why here, in issues of life and death do we ignore BOTH evidence-based medicine AND social-psych issues? This, if anything, is evidence of a hijacking of medicine by special-interest groups.
While the question, “When does life begin?” was treated as an unanswered philosophical question in 1973, “an explosion of scientific evidence on human life” since then “conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception,” Parker argues.
Well, i’m not sure that this is true. My argument is that we CAN’T know therefore we must go on the assumption that it is conception.
Under a 1999 law, Texas provides for any woman’s unwanted child from birth to 18 years of age with no questions asked, which means women should no longer be forced to dispose of “unwanted” children by ending a human life, insists Parker. Forty states have similar “Baby Moses” laws.
Brilliant. Great way to help infertile couples as well.
F_alk, we have the best legal system in the world. :roll:
Well, i’m pretty sure that THIS isn’t true (and NOT for the reasons JANUS listed . . .).