<b>Alex Trebek</b> wrote:Foxfyre wrote: The original intent and language has been so corrupted by the courts, however, that I would advocate it being chucked and replaced with a different law with the same intent but less able to be manipulated by socially activist courts.
You must be talking about
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case where the Supreme Court upheld the core points of
Roe v. Wade, but backpedaled about their extent.
I'm not familiar with that case, but it could be a good illustration, I am talking about the courts taking Roe v Wade far beyond its original intent and interpreting it to mean that there will be no restrictions on abortion of any kind at any time by any method for any reason. That trend has continued and probably will continue to do so. It has even attempted to extend the right to an abortion that supercedes parental jurisdiction or oversight. Whether or not you or anybody else thinks that should be the way it should be, that was NEVER the intention of Roe v Wade.
All I'm saying is that this may be where Thompson is coming from. He may have not changed his position on it at all though as you have already seen, his position can be taken out of context and thus may look like a flip flop when it actually isn't. The language of Roe v Wade is exquisite and compelling, but apparently not specific enough to prevent corruption of its intent.
_________________
--Foxfyre
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
