Overturning Roe v. Wade Brings Up Many Issues, But It Does Not Make Abortion Illegal
Many people like to argue that their views on abortion are true because they are as simple as such and such, however, if you really believe that reducing the issue to a simplistic narrative, without nuances, is the best approach, you are not critically thinking about it. There is no good solution to abortion, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or pushing an agenda without much thought. In some way, shape, or form, regardless of which side you happen to find yourself on, someone’s rights are potentially being violated, and principles are being abandoned for the sake of political convenience. When you have two living bodies inhabiting the same space and one of them wants something at the expense of the other, conflict is inevitable.
No doubt, the mother has the right to her own body and any medical substances or procedures of her choice, conducted through voluntary means, and this would include the abortion procedure. However, the baby in the womb is also a human life, and such procedure unavoidably results in the death of the child and violates the right of the baby to choose life and exercise autonomy over his or her body (no child can reasonably understand what this means until a certain age, and he or she is completely dependent on parental figures for the first several years of life, so it is a moot point to argue that the child is a parasite and cannot function on his or her own). Whether you fall in the camp that the fetus is a clump of cells that happens to have a heartbeat and feel pain, or you believe that the child in the womb is a full human life, it is important to have respectful conversations to understand others’ perspectives.
When the leaked document, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was revealed, those on the Left were outraged that their sacred right to murder babies, secured through the Supreme Court rulings of Roe v. Wade (establishing that abortion falls under the right of privacy granted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (establishing the undue burden standard for abortion), was under threat. Yet, instead of thinking through the nuances, many reacted to this emotionally (including a scary rant from Senator Elizabeth Warren) and erroneously argued that the decision would make abortion illegal. There are many problems with this line of thinking.
First of all, the decision has still not been conclusively decided, as the justices can be persuaded to change their opinions before the official ruling (perhaps this document was leaked with the intention of trying to pressure one or more justices into changing their votes). The Left spends much of its time fact checking so-called conspiracy theorists and Trumpers by arguing miniscule points that attempt to delegitimize certain claims that go against the narrative, and the fact that Politico stated that the Roe v. Wade decision had already been decided was a violation of journalistic integrity (or, as they would say, “we rate this claim as misleading”).
The Leftist claim that the decision makes abortion illegal is a blatantly false idea that has the potential to turn pro-abortion folks into violent protesters ahead of the midterm elections. Instead of unrestricted abortion being the law of the land, the decisions are now reserved to the states, as is demanded by the Tenth Amendment (the Roe decision was actually unconstitutional in that police powers and local law are not something that should be determined by the federal government, and policies, like what constitutes murder, are not federal issues). Yes, some states could abolish abortion, but likely half of the country (especially New York, California, and New Jersey) would likely remain unaffected by this decision. In some states, there could be a black market that explodes, and unsafe abortions could be performed in the underground. This would, of course, be a problem that would have to be addressed, and many would travel to other states to have abortion performed where it is still legal. This is the system of federalism that is required under our republic, however. As I said previously, there is no perfect solution to the problem, and when people argue that the decision would make abortion illegal, they are, in fact, lying.
It is interesting that the Mississippi abortion law that the Supreme Court is hearing allows abortion up to fifteen weeks, and yet, in France, abortion is illegal after fourteen weeks, unless two physicians can sign off that there is a medical reason to perform one. It seems almost laughable to think that progressives do not ridicule France for being backwards thinking or anything of the sort (most of them probably are unaware), being that Mississippi is potentially more progressive on this issue. In New York, for example, you can have an abortion up until the moment of birth, and politicians, seemingly bent on sacrificing tiny lives, have praised this as the gold standard of abortion. A woman’s right to choose what to do with her body should, no doubt, be respected, but killing life is not something that should be praised. It will be interesting to see what each state adopts as policy going forward.
Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision in another way too. It assumed that the Supreme Court, a body of nine unelected justices, could create their own polices that govern all three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy (no restrictions in the first, reasonable health regulations in the second, and prohibitions permitted in the third). Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court the power to legislate in areas that Congress does not act. Not only would this decision revert the issue to the state legislatures, as is the appropriate place for such things in a republican form of government (or “democracy”), but it prevents an oligarchy of legal scholars from imposing their will on the entire country. Yet, the Left argues, in a twisted perspective, that the reversal is the Right imposing its will on the country, since most Americans apparently want abortion to be legal across the entire country. Whether the majority wants it or not, this is not the legal, democratic, or constitutional process that we have, so leaving it to the states is actually the fairest position to take (again, this is not a perfect solution that satisfies everyone and definitively secures everyone’s right to choose).
During pregnancy, the child is a temporary inconvenience (being forced to wear a mask during the pandemic was also a temporary inconvenience, according to many upset by the decision), and a mother can choose to put the child up for adoption after the nine months (of course, addressing regulations and unease in the adoption process might need to become a priority). The Left likes to emphasize the rape issue, but the fact is that rape makes up an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, so it is almost as if this is just an excuse to validate the position. It is too bad that there is not a way to separate the unborn baby from the mother’s body in a way that keeps the child alive and allows the mother to not have to bear the burden of an additional body for those nine months, but at this time, no such ability exists. If the mother’s life is threatened by the birth or the child will suffer an incurable disease, this is a different situation, and these issues would be balanced at the state level.
It is interesting that the “my body, my choice” people cry the hardest for the ability to have an abortion, but they also scream and shout at those who do not wear a mask or get a vaccine. They had no problem locking people in their homes (through executive edict), shuttering small businesses (while allowing big businesses to continue operating), or forcing people to get a needle injected in their arm to keep their job or participate in voluntary transactions (vaccine passport system). As I said previously, abortion is one of those issues where principles cannot be definitively followed, and the Left proved over two years that it does not really believe in the principle of bodily autonomy. If you only believe in this concept on abortion or pick and choose when it should apply, you do not really believe in your stated principle (to be fair, the Right has no problem prohibiting marijuana or prostitution in a violation of the “my body, my choice” concept).
What events will transpire in the upcoming months? Will progressives hold on to key positions and win the midterms because of this court case? Will the Left participate in “mostly peaceful” protests or January 6th-style “coup attempts” in a summer of violence and rioting? Will the abortion issue drop off as almost every other important topic eventually does, since Americans have short attention spans? Will this cause more division in an already-polarized country? Will the Right attempt to prohibit interracial or homosexual marriage, as the Left claims (a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is acceptable to believe because it is espoused by the Left)? Will the Left retaliate and go after gun rights? Time will tell, but one thing will remain: abortion will continue to be an unsolvable problem with charged responses on both sides.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
No doubt, the mother has the right to her own body and any medical substances or procedures of her choice, conducted through voluntary means, and this would include the abortion procedure. However, the baby in the womb is also a human life, and such procedure unavoidably results in the death of the child and violates the right of the baby to choose life and exercise autonomy over his or her body (no child can reasonably understand what this means until a certain age, and he or she is completely dependent on parental figures for the first several years of life, so it is a moot point to argue that the child is a parasite and cannot function on his or her own). Whether you fall in the camp that the fetus is a clump of cells that happens to have a heartbeat and feel pain, or you believe that the child in the womb is a full human life, it is important to have respectful conversations to understand others’ perspectives.
When the leaked document, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was revealed, those on the Left were outraged that their sacred right to murder babies, secured through the Supreme Court rulings of Roe v. Wade (establishing that abortion falls under the right of privacy granted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (establishing the undue burden standard for abortion), was under threat. Yet, instead of thinking through the nuances, many reacted to this emotionally (including a scary rant from Senator Elizabeth Warren) and erroneously argued that the decision would make abortion illegal. There are many problems with this line of thinking.
First of all, the decision has still not been conclusively decided, as the justices can be persuaded to change their opinions before the official ruling (perhaps this document was leaked with the intention of trying to pressure one or more justices into changing their votes). The Left spends much of its time fact checking so-called conspiracy theorists and Trumpers by arguing miniscule points that attempt to delegitimize certain claims that go against the narrative, and the fact that Politico stated that the Roe v. Wade decision had already been decided was a violation of journalistic integrity (or, as they would say, “we rate this claim as misleading”).
The Leftist claim that the decision makes abortion illegal is a blatantly false idea that has the potential to turn pro-abortion folks into violent protesters ahead of the midterm elections. Instead of unrestricted abortion being the law of the land, the decisions are now reserved to the states, as is demanded by the Tenth Amendment (the Roe decision was actually unconstitutional in that police powers and local law are not something that should be determined by the federal government, and policies, like what constitutes murder, are not federal issues). Yes, some states could abolish abortion, but likely half of the country (especially New York, California, and New Jersey) would likely remain unaffected by this decision. In some states, there could be a black market that explodes, and unsafe abortions could be performed in the underground. This would, of course, be a problem that would have to be addressed, and many would travel to other states to have abortion performed where it is still legal. This is the system of federalism that is required under our republic, however. As I said previously, there is no perfect solution to the problem, and when people argue that the decision would make abortion illegal, they are, in fact, lying.
It is interesting that the Mississippi abortion law that the Supreme Court is hearing allows abortion up to fifteen weeks, and yet, in France, abortion is illegal after fourteen weeks, unless two physicians can sign off that there is a medical reason to perform one. It seems almost laughable to think that progressives do not ridicule France for being backwards thinking or anything of the sort (most of them probably are unaware), being that Mississippi is potentially more progressive on this issue. In New York, for example, you can have an abortion up until the moment of birth, and politicians, seemingly bent on sacrificing tiny lives, have praised this as the gold standard of abortion. A woman’s right to choose what to do with her body should, no doubt, be respected, but killing life is not something that should be praised. It will be interesting to see what each state adopts as policy going forward.
Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision in another way too. It assumed that the Supreme Court, a body of nine unelected justices, could create their own polices that govern all three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy (no restrictions in the first, reasonable health regulations in the second, and prohibitions permitted in the third). Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court the power to legislate in areas that Congress does not act. Not only would this decision revert the issue to the state legislatures, as is the appropriate place for such things in a republican form of government (or “democracy”), but it prevents an oligarchy of legal scholars from imposing their will on the entire country. Yet, the Left argues, in a twisted perspective, that the reversal is the Right imposing its will on the country, since most Americans apparently want abortion to be legal across the entire country. Whether the majority wants it or not, this is not the legal, democratic, or constitutional process that we have, so leaving it to the states is actually the fairest position to take (again, this is not a perfect solution that satisfies everyone and definitively secures everyone’s right to choose).
During pregnancy, the child is a temporary inconvenience (being forced to wear a mask during the pandemic was also a temporary inconvenience, according to many upset by the decision), and a mother can choose to put the child up for adoption after the nine months (of course, addressing regulations and unease in the adoption process might need to become a priority). The Left likes to emphasize the rape issue, but the fact is that rape makes up an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, so it is almost as if this is just an excuse to validate the position. It is too bad that there is not a way to separate the unborn baby from the mother’s body in a way that keeps the child alive and allows the mother to not have to bear the burden of an additional body for those nine months, but at this time, no such ability exists. If the mother’s life is threatened by the birth or the child will suffer an incurable disease, this is a different situation, and these issues would be balanced at the state level.
It is interesting that the “my body, my choice” people cry the hardest for the ability to have an abortion, but they also scream and shout at those who do not wear a mask or get a vaccine. They had no problem locking people in their homes (through executive edict), shuttering small businesses (while allowing big businesses to continue operating), or forcing people to get a needle injected in their arm to keep their job or participate in voluntary transactions (vaccine passport system). As I said previously, abortion is one of those issues where principles cannot be definitively followed, and the Left proved over two years that it does not really believe in the principle of bodily autonomy. If you only believe in this concept on abortion or pick and choose when it should apply, you do not really believe in your stated principle (to be fair, the Right has no problem prohibiting marijuana or prostitution in a violation of the “my body, my choice” concept).
What events will transpire in the upcoming months? Will progressives hold on to key positions and win the midterms because of this court case? Will the Left participate in “mostly peaceful” protests or January 6th-style “coup attempts” in a summer of violence and rioting? Will the abortion issue drop off as almost every other important topic eventually does, since Americans have short attention spans? Will this cause more division in an already-polarized country? Will the Right attempt to prohibit interracial or homosexual marriage, as the Left claims (a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is acceptable to believe because it is espoused by the Left)? Will the Left retaliate and go after gun rights? Time will tell, but one thing will remain: abortion will continue to be an unsolvable problem with charged responses on both sides.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
No comments have been added yet.
