The Roe v. Wade misconception...

Ok, so I'm watching the interview of Sarah Palin with Charlie Gibson and abortion came up. I don't think many people really understand what Roe v. Wade would mean, if it were overturned. Sarah Palin hinted to it in her answer, but it should be up to Charlie Gibson to do his research and explain fully what it would mean to overturn Roe v. Wade, rather than make the question so divisive.

Myth: Overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortions illegal.

Truth: Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the medical issue to each individual state to decide.

Wherever you stand on the issue, this is something we should all want.

As I discovered when reading Laura Ingraham's, Power to the People, even the most liberal legal analysts state that the decision was one of judicial activism and has no constitutional basis. All it did was take an issue that belonged at the state level and brought it to the federal level based on no constitutional interpretation whatsoever.

Keep in mind, that is all the Supreme Court is supposed to do, decide which state laws overstep federal laws. They are not supposed to create federal laws in the process, which is what happened in Roe v. Wade.

So I'm ok if you disagree with pro-life stances. If you're read this blog, you know that I was once strongly pro-choice. I'm beginning to question my own reasoning for that stance, but still lean pro-choice at the moment.

Regardless, it would not be a disaster of Roe v. Wade was overturned. In fact, in keeping with the preservation of the legal system, it probably should be overturned and allow it to return to a states rights issue...which is exactly what Sarah Palin said when she answered Charlie Gibson's question. She stated that her personal belief was pro-life, even extremely so according to some, but she answered the question correctly, even according to the most liberal legal analysts.