|“Roe v. Wade—Dissenting Opinion|
JUSTICE William H. REHNQUIST
Roe v. Wade
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
The Court’s opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.
The Court’s opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her lawsuit. While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others. Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). The Court’s statement of facts, in this case, makes clear, however, that the record in no way indicates the presence of such a plaintiff. We know only that plaintiff Roe at the time of filing her complaint was a pregnant woman; for aught that appears in this record, she may have been in her last trimester of pregnancy as of the date the complaint was filed.
Nothing in the Court’s opinion indicates that Texas might not constitutionally apply its proscription of abortion as written to a woman in that stage of pregnancy. Nonetheless, the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that the States may impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never “formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.” Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885). See also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)”
You may read the full transcript here.
I do not believe in abortion, period. Something dead cannot all of a sudden become alive. That is preposterous. If a zygote in the womb, like a seed in the ground and becomes a plant or flower, that zygote can grow into an embryo, then a fetus, until full term, and be delivered as a baby. So tell me when it suddenly became was or was not alive? It had to be alive at the inception of conception. Defective zygotes and embryos and sadly sometimes fetus’ self-abort. It is an act of nature.
Many believe a woman who is a product of rape or incest should abort, but I do not necessarily agree. God created all life. Therefore, a woman or teen pregnant under those conditions can carry to term and put the baby up for adoption. That would be the humane thing to do.
Both men and women should indeed use protection, but many women love to play madame butterfly and not pay the consequences. That is why most states have become welfare nanny states. Women just have babies to collect welfare and are being too selfish to put the baby up for adoption. For many women and men, it’s about welfare.
Abortion is a quick way out. It’s a costly way out. Kill the embryo or fetus and get it out of the way. Where is God and morality in all this? Who will tell you, you just may live to regret having an abortion? Do women really think it is okay to live with blood on their hands? Abortion is murder. I pray not, and if you have had an abortion pray to God and ask for His forgiveness, because He is faithful to forgive you.
Thou shalt not kill.