From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 18:07:32 MST
The reservations that I have about "Roe V. Wade" are well
summed up by Judge Bork:
I objected to Roe v. Wade the moment it was decided,
not because of any doubts about abortion, but because
the decision was a radical deformation of the Consti-
tution. The Constitution has nothing to say about
abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the
judgment and moral sense of the American people and
their elected representatives. Roe and the decisions
reaffirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse
of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sandford. Just
as Dred Scott forced a southern proslavery position
on the nation, Roe is nothing more than the Supreme
Court's imposition of the morality of our cultural
elites.
Unfortunately, since that time Bork has become wildly anti-abortion:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9612/articles/bork.html
But his original reasons, above, to oppose the ruling
still stand in my opinion.
But sooner or later in the United States it seems, everything
must be decided globally by the Federal Government and its
"one size fits all" mentality.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 06 2003 - 18:03:54 MST