I will leave Justice Rehnquist to eloquently state why the 14th amendment is not a factor in this case:
"If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one."
Rehnquist's point is wrong because there is no valid state objective in legislating the first trimester of a pregnancy. I could cut and paste the majority opinion in Roe vs Wade if you would find that more eloquent. A poll of the other Supreme Court Justices found that 7 out of 8 disagreed with Rehnquist.
The simple fact is, the framers did not intend "born or naturalized citizens" to offer a scapegoat for legalized abortion. Abortion was criminal in those days and no one would have attempted it.
This is not simple fact. It is fiction. Common law during the time of the framers allowed termination of pregnancy without limitation before quickening (which usually occurs around the 16-18th week). The first abortion legislation in the US in Connecticut in 1821 made abortion illegal, but only after quickening.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court still had no constitutional right to overturn the Texas statute. Abortion is not a right reserved to the people because the right to privacy does not exist in the constitution. The right to life does, however.
I will let Alexander Hamilton eloquently explain it:
excerpt Federalist Paper 84:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."…
…I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?…
The ninth amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison It was introduced in Congress by him and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the [381 U.S. 479, 490] last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment]." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834).
See the question isn't, where is the right of abortion in the constitution. Rather the question is where in the constitution did we grant the government power to mandate a woman remain pregnant against her will? It is a question of liberty.
Madison and Hamilton did every thing possible to preserve our liberty. Join the fight. It would make Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson proud. And when your liberty is at stake perhaps others will join with you.
Comments
Rehnquist's point is wrong because there is no valid state objective in legislating the first trimester of a pregnancy. I could cut and paste the majority opinion in Roe vs Wade if you would find that more eloquent. A poll of the other Supreme Court Justices found that 7 out of 8 disagreed with Rehnquist.
This is not simple fact. It is fiction. Common law during the time of the framers allowed termination of pregnancy without limitation before quickening (which usually occurs around the 16-18th week). The first abortion legislation in the US in Connecticut in 1821 made abortion illegal, but only after quickening.
The 14th doesn't protect a fetus. You can't get there. You have to be born or naturalized
I will let Alexander Hamilton eloquently explain it:
excerpt Federalist Paper 84:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."…
…I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?…
The ninth amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison It was introduced in Congress by him and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the [381 U.S. 479, 490] last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment]." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834).
See the question isn't, where is the right of abortion in the constitution. Rather the question is where in the constitution did we grant the government power to mandate a woman remain pregnant against her will? It is a question of liberty.
Madison and Hamilton did every thing possible to preserve our liberty. Join the fight. It would make Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson proud. And when your liberty is at stake perhaps others will join with you.