… ., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
However, others believe that the Fourteenth
Amendment alone is not adequate to justify any
right to abortion. “I believe, for example, that
there is a right of privacy in the Fourth
Amendment . . . the governor would appoint people
who would overturn Roe v.
Wade.” Al Gore, October
3, 2000 (during presidential debate). #26) “Mr.
Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the
limitations imposed by the first section,
fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be
more fully understood, permit me to say that the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States, as contradistinguished from
citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the
first eight amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.” Cong. Globe, App. 1st Sess., 42d
Cong., pp. 81, 83-85 (1871) (comments of
Representative John Bingham) quoted in Adamson v.
California, 332 U.S. 46, 115 (1947) (Black, J.,
#27) “Repeated references to sources
understandable only to a trained physician may
obscure matters for persons not trained in medical
terminology. Thus it seems necessary at the outset
to set forth what may happen during an abortion .
. . . As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E
procedure requires the abortionist to use
instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or
hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the
grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina.
Carhart uses the traction created by the
opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember
the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from
the remainder of the body. The traction between
the uterus and vagina is essential to the
procedure because attempting to abort a fetus
without using that traction is described by Dr.
Carhart as ‘pulling the cat’s tail’ or ‘drag[ging]
a string across the floor, you’ll just keep
dragging it. It’s not until something grabs the
other end that you are going to develop traction.’
The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human
adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is
torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the
beginning of the dismemberment process and can
survive for a time while its limbs are being torn
off. Dr. Carhart agreed that ‘[w]hen you pull out
a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg
and remove that, at the time just prior to removal
of the portion of the fetus, .
. . the fetus [is]
alive.’ Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat
via ultrasound with ‘extensive parts of the fetus
removed,’ and testified that mere dismemberment of
a limb does not always cause death because he
knows of a physician who removed the arm of a
fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born ‘as
a living child with one arm.’ At the conclusion of
a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr.
Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with ‘a
tray full of pieces.’ The other procedure
implicated today is called ‘partial-birth
abortion’ or the D&X . .
. . The fetus’ arms
and legs are delivered outside the uterus while
the fetus is alive; witnesses to the procedure
report seeing the body of the fetus moving outside
the woman’s body. At this point, the abortion
procedure has the appearance of a live birth. As
stated by one group of physicians, ‘[a]s the
physician manually performs breech extraction of
the body of a live fetus, excepting the head, she
continues in the apparent role of an obstetrician
delivering a child.’ With only the head of the
fetus remaining in utero, the abortionist tears
open the skull. According to Dr.
Martin Haskell, a
leading proponent of the procedure, the
appropriate instrument to be used at this stage of
the abortion is a pair of scissors. Witnesses
report observing the portion of the fetus outside
the woman react to the skull penetration. The
abortionist then inserts a suction tube and
vacuums out the developing brain and other matter
found within the skull. The process of making the
size of the fetus’ head smaller is given the
clinically neutral term ‘reduction procedure.’
Brain death does not occur until after the skull
invasion, and, according to Dr. Carhart, the heart
of the fetus may continue to beat for minutes
after the contents of the skull are vacuumed out.
The abortionist next completes the delivery of a
dead fetus, intact except for the damage to the
head and the missing contents of the skull.”
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S.
(2000)(Kennedy, J., dissenting)(citations
omitted). #28) “If you don’t know whether a body
is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think
this consideration itself should be enough for all
of us to insist on protecting the unborn.” Ronald
Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,
21 (1983). #29) “I hold it to be a maxim which
ought to be sacred in our form of government, that
no man ought to be deprived of any right or
privilege which he enjoys under the constitution,
but for some offence proved in due course of law.”
New York Assembly, Remarks on an Act for
Regulating Elections in 4 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER
HAMILTON 25, 28 (H. Syrett ed. 1962) (January 29,
1787) (emphasis added).
Hamilton’s maxim has found
a home in the Eighth Amendment. “The substantive
limits imposed by the Eighth Amendment on what can
be made criminal and punished were discussed in
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). The
Court found unconstitutional a state statute that
made the status of being addicted to a narcotic
drug a criminal offense. It held, in effect, that
it is ‘cruel and unusual’ to impose any punishment
at all for the mere status of addiction.
cruelty in the abstract of the actual sentence
imposed was irrelevant: ‘Even one day in prison
would be a cruel and unusual punishment for . . .
having a common cold.’ Id., at 667.” Gregg v.
Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 172. There are some
significant similarities between Robinson and
another, much more horrendous decision: “an act of
Congress which deprives a citizen of the United
States of his liberty or property, merely because
he came himself or brought his property into a
particular Territory of the United States, and who
had committed no offence against the laws, could
hardly be dignified with the name of due process
of law.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.
(1856) (emphasis added). The Dred Scott case was
the first time the Court ever applied the doctrine
of substantive due process, and the property
referred to were slaves..
Research essay sample on Responses On The Ethics Of Abortion