By Bob Ward - Editor,Texas Daily
SEN.HUTCHISON says
overturning Roe v Wade
will mean more abortions.
overturning Roe v Wade
will mean more abortions.
WHO IS HUTCHISON KIDDING ABOUT ROE V. WADE?
Is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison confused about what Roe v Wade is – or is she trying to confuse us?
In a debate with her two opponents for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, the senator was asked whether
she would support reversal of Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that
legalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy, tossing out state laws that restricted
or outlawed abortion.
She replied that would not support reversing it because that would allow states to
become "abortion havens." It would even permit, she continued, some states to
allow abortion "as the baby is coming out of the birth canal" a procedure that is
prohibited under a Federal law signed by President George W. Bush in 2003
and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007.
The reality that Sen. Hutchison is, or pretends to be, unaware of is that Roe v.
Wade, in combination with Doe v Bolton, a case decided by the Supreme Court on the same day, made the
entire U.S. an “abortion haven.”
Roe v Wade permitted a state to outlaw abortion in the final trimester unless that
procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. But Doe v
Bolton redefined health so broadly as make the term meaningless. The effect
was to make abortion on whim the law of the land. It is not possible for a state
to pass a law making abortion less restrictive than than the court did in those two decisions.
Contrary to Sen. Hutchison’s claims, reversing Roe v Wade can have no effect other than to make abortion
less frequent. The states, including Texas, could reinstate the laws they had on their books at the time the
ruling came down. In some states that would include a total ban on the procedure except to save the life of
the mother.
Hutchison has been in politics long enough to know that Roe v Wade does not restrict ab ortion but rather
imposes a liberal abortion policy on all states. Her statements in response to the question sound like an
attempt to sound as thought she opposes abortion while her record says otherwise.
Is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison confused about what Roe v Wade is – or is she trying to confuse us?
In a debate with her two opponents for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, the senator was asked whether
she would support reversal of Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that
legalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy, tossing out state laws that restricted
or outlawed abortion.
She replied that would not support reversing it because that would allow states to
become "abortion havens." It would even permit, she continued, some states to
allow abortion "as the baby is coming out of the birth canal" a procedure that is
prohibited under a Federal law signed by President George W. Bush in 2003
and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007.
The reality that Sen. Hutchison is, or pretends to be, unaware of is that Roe v.
Wade, in combination with Doe v Bolton, a case decided by the Supreme Court on the same day, made the
entire U.S. an “abortion haven.”
Roe v Wade permitted a state to outlaw abortion in the final trimester unless that
procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. But Doe v
Bolton redefined health so broadly as make the term meaningless. The effect
was to make abortion on whim the law of the land. It is not possible for a state
to pass a law making abortion less restrictive than than the court did in those two decisions.
Contrary to Sen. Hutchison’s claims, reversing Roe v Wade can have no effect other than to make abortion
less frequent. The states, including Texas, could reinstate the laws they had on their books at the time the
ruling came down. In some states that would include a total ban on the procedure except to save the life of
the mother.
Hutchison has been in politics long enough to know that Roe v Wade does not restrict ab ortion but rather
imposes a liberal abortion policy on all states. Her statements in response to the question sound like an
attempt to sound as thought she opposes abortion while her record says otherwise.