Today is June 24th 2022, This day will be remembered as the day the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade. I will start out by stating my personal feelings on abortion to clear the air. I have no problem with abortion on demand, even as birth control, in the first trimester (which was what Roe said, fyi). The age of viability (that age where a fetus is more likely to survive than die if delivered) is 24 week currently. The youngest baby to survive was 21 weeks and 5 days old. That is why I have no issue with first trimester (@13 weeks) abortions are fine for any reason. I also have no issue with an abortion at any stage (with some caveats) in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I think that decision should be up to the mother, her family - to the extent she wants them involved -, her doctor, and whatever higher power she may beleive in. So, this is not my cheer for the end of abortion!
In case this is being read in some distant future where Roe v Wade is not recognizable, that was the name adopted (as is tradition for legal cases) from the litigants in a case concerning the legality/Constitutionality of laws banning abortions. The litigant, Norma McCorvey - referred to as Jane Roe to protect her identity - was prevented from having an abortion due to a Texas law. She filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the District Attorney in Dallas, Tx (representing the government by proxy) - thus Roe vs Wade.
Now, some clarity: the Supremes did not rule against abortion today. Obviously I do not know what is in the hearts and minds of the Justices, maybe a personal bias against abortion played a role with one or more Justice's vote. However, Supreme Court cases are not about being "for" or "against" anything before them, with rare exception. Their job is to rule on the Constitutionality (legality, in a way) of laws or rulings by lower courts on laws. In fact the case today was not even about Roe v Wade, nor were those names part of the case name, which was (is?): Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It concerned the legality/Constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law banning most abortions in that State after 15 weeks gestation. The challenge to the Mississippi law invoked Roe as precedent that the law was unconstitutional. The Justices today ruled that State's do have the right to set laws for their residents that to not explicitly violate the Constitution. Since no medical procedure is mentioned in the Constitution it was ruled that way.
Now for the legal argument against Roe, to the limits of my knowledge. I have taken a couple of Constitutional law courses over my studies. I never heard anyone agree that Roe was "good law". Invoking the 14th amendment as the basis for the Roe v Wade ruling has been decried by many, many people including Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG commented several times over the years that Roe was flawed and a bad decision. (my words, paraphrasing hers) She was a huge women's rights advocate and believed in abortion rights, but not Roe v Wade. She had hoped for another legal solution to allow abortions.
What the court did was eliminate Federal jurisdiction over abortions and send the power back to the States to decide. That is how it should be according to many Constitutional scholars (and myself). The Constitution states in the Tenth Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights that: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, if a right is not expressly enumerated or spelled out, it should be handled by the people of each State through their elected representatives and the laws they make. This was how the US was set up - a confederation of independent States. The citizens of each State would have their representatives in their legislatures pass laws that met the mores, and desires of the people of that State. This has been eroded - in error, in my opinion - by those that want a Federal law to take precedent. The Constitution has been amended and interpreted to allow control by the Federal government in a broad range of areas. However, pure Constitutionalists see this a getting away from the Founders intent. But, I will move on. I have three posts on here about civics and the Constitution from a few years ago. If you care to, check them out.
Some people are comparing the Justices ruling earlier this week striking down the NY law severely limiting the right to carry a firearm on ones person. The HUGE difference here is that the right to bear arms is guaranteed explicitly and with that exact verbiage in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. They did not rule that one could carry a gun, fyi. They ruled the NY law was unconstitutional.
Abortion is not and was not banned by the Supremes. There are State laws now that ban abortions or put strong limits on the procedure. The key here is to get your State to change the laws or move to a State that has a law more pleasing to you. That was the intent of the Founders anyway.
Comments