nathan: I do not mean to split hair, but the last time I read the Roe v Wade decision, it made a specific reference to the 14 amendment. See the attached excerpt from the syllabus:
"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. "
(Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147)
But I fully agree with your statement:
>
>Or another way of saying it, the Court decided abortion rights were a good
>thing. Notably, they refused to base the right on gender equality.
>
>But as the debate with Charles implies, the real right to abortion came
>based on the mass mobilization of women that had already forced Ronald
>Reagan to sign a strong abortion rights law as Governor a few years before
>Roe v. Wade. As is common, the Court was ratifying the movement in the
>streets.
wojtek
Dr. S. Wojciech Sokolowski Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218 voice (410) 516-4056 fax (410) 516-8233 email sokol at jhu.edu