door opens on dissing roe v wade

ok georgeob1, don't read Justice Blackmum

OK, don't answer my very practical, pointed, and decisive question.

dyslexia: You have to realize that georgeob1, is correct.

It matters not a tinkers damn what Blackmun wrote, that was then, this is now, and what does matter is that the camel's nose is under the tent, and the rest of the animal is not far behind.

As I have repeatedly stated, laws in this country regarding abortion since RvW have repeatedly been focused on how we can EXPAND the ability of women and girls to receive abortions.

"dyslexia: You have to realize that georgeob1, is correct"
um, well no i don't HAVE to realize that, you have an opinion, he has an opinion and i have an opinion.

Each state has different regulations about who, when, where, and how a woman can get an abortion." Though Roe, Doe and Casey limit the power of states to regulate or ban abortion, nearly every state has some sort of law limiting abortion. About 4/5 ban non-therapeutic abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. Many have parental notice or consent laws for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and statistical reporting requirements for all abortions. Most of these latter types of legislation were ruled unconstitutional during the period form Roe to Thornburg, but have been mostly upheld since the Webster and Casey precedents replaced the "strict scrutiny" standard with the more flexible "undue burden" test. Since Casey, as medical science pushes the line of viability further back, states have been allowed to proscribe abortion earlier than under Roe. Some states have responded by adding viability test requirements.
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm
but then everyone is entitled to an opinion.

dyslexia,

OK I read your link and noted that your last post was taken verbatim from it. I am confused by your reference to the Blackmun decision. He is the principal defender of Roe and has been the most uncompromising justice defending it since then. What was in it was merely an argument for the strict adherence to the blanket prohibition of any limit to abortion as originally given in Roe. There is nothing in Blackmun's decision that limits Roe in any way.

I did note the Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services case in 1989. It does , as you say, open the door for state mandates for certain reporting and information requirements and selected restrictions on late term abortions - though procedural prohibitions on things like partial birth abortions were struck down, and the basic findings of Roe were upheld. In that area I stand corrected.

However my statement that you objected to concerned only Roe vs. Wade as written and as enforced after 1972. On that point my statement was entirely correct.

Surely you don't mean this when you write it, do you? In the "Opinion of the Court," which is Blackmun's opinion (when the court reaches a decision, one of the justices who agrees with the decision, is selected by the others voting in that manner, to write an opinion, which is the "Opinion of the Court," and is the only opinion which can be used in findings of law. Other written opinions, including dissentient ones, can be used for findings of fact, but not of law. I'm sure you know this, but others reading this thread may not.), Blackmun twice specifically states that States have a legitimate interest in the regulation of abortion. I have provided a link above, at which you can read all of the opinions in full. That Roe v. Wade has seemed to lift all restrictions is a product of the decisions reached by appellate courts since 1973, and cannot be laid at Blackmun's feet.