My Thoughts on the Overturning of Roe v. Wade
A long-time friend of mine just told me that he believes life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. He agrees with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. He ignored my reply. Perhaps others might be interested in it.
I am not a lawyer or a doctor, but I do feel strongly about the issue of abortion.
This is what I believe and why.
The question of when life begins is a philosophical and a religious question. The Supreme Court should not favor one religion over another, should not make judgments on religious issues. Such issues should be a matter of personal choice.
Many Jews consider the overturning of Roe as a violation of their religious rights.
And even the Catholic Church is ambivalent on this issue, despite the Pope’s stance that it is murder. The Catholic Church does not allow baptism until after birth, after the baby breaths, and does not allow burial in Catholic cemeteries without baptism. A baby is not considered a human being until it breaths.
The US government does not recognize the unborn as citizens, with the rights and responsibilities of citizens. A pregnant woman cannot declare an unborn child as a dependent for tax purposes. (Though considering the costs involved in carrying a fetus to term, such a deduction would make sense, regardless of whether the unborn was considered a person and a citizen.)
Your opinion that life begins at conception would mean that use of the day-after pill is murder. And it’s a small step from that to consider birth control as murder as well as hysterectomies an even masturbation. Do you consider frozen embryos as people with rights and their destruction as murder.
In his opinion in support of the majority, Clarence Thomas said the same logic behind the overtune of Roe could and should be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations and same-sex marriage.
The question of if and when to have an abortion should be up to the mother in consultation with
doctors and nurses. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to make such decisions or to curb a woman’s choice in such matters. And freedom of religion, under the first Amendment, should rule out such governmental interference.
There is no need to go into all the practical matters — the instances when abortion is necessary to save the mother, the cases of incest and rape, and the fact that without access to safe legal abortion, the desperate will seek unsafe illegal abortions and many young women will die (which was the case before Roe).
Every case is unique. Every sch decision is personal and difficult. Let women make their own decisions.
As for states making such decisions separately, the actions of legislatures in abortion banning states in trying to prevent their citizens for seeking abortions out of state makes this a federal matter. Some have already passed laws to make it illegal to go out of state for an abortion and illegal to help them do so, even making it illegal (in Florida) to offer information about such options. Such supplementary laws are contrary to the First Amendment right of free speech. And the notion of setting up inspection stations at state borders to determine is women who are traveling out of state are pregnant is repugnant, as is the notion of subjecting women of childbearing age to pregnancy checks. This smells of Dread Scott and slavery.
As for the composition of the Supreme Court, a judge should be able to change his mind on a critical issue because of the unique circumstances of a particular case. But overturning well-established precedent — what Trump appointees called “settle law” in their confirmation hearings — in contradiction to their sworn testimony, should not be condoned. If because of soul-searching, a Supreme Court judge reevaluates his/her position on such a issue, he/she should recuse him/herself from ruling on said issue, because their confirmation hinged on the stance that they affirmed under oath. Also, if the basis of their change is religious, their religion should not be allowed to affect their judgement. Otherwise, they are imposing their religious beliefs on all citizens in clear violation of the Constitution.
The number of justices is not set by the Constitution. It has been changed six times in the past. The number was set at nine in 1869, not in an amendment, but rather in a law, so the number would be the same as the number of appears courts. Today, there are thirteen appeals courts. I would be reasonable to expand the court accordingly, in an effort to reestablish public faith in the impartiality of the court, at a time when the public knows that three members lied to Congress and a fourth is implicate in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
It is also reasonable to remove Thomas not just for his role in the insurrection but also because he did not recuse himself in a case that clearly involved the question of the culpability of his wife. (On that he was the lone dissenter.)
And Kavanaugh should be thoroughly investigated, in particular the allegations that his mortgage and high personal debt were paid for in exchange favors on matters before the Court.
The Court must be held to high standards of impartiality in order to regain public faith in the rule of law.
I believe that basing the original Roe ruling on an implied “right of privacy” was a grave mistake. Rather the ruling could and should have been a matter of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It should be deemed unconstitutional for any US government (federal, state, local) to decide when life begins and make laws based on that religious belief.
