Yes, Roe v. Wade is an issue of liberty and democracy
Last Thursday’s bombshell sent shockwaves throughout the world. Of course, who would expect a fifty-year precedent to be completely reversed in a split-second?
It has been raised again and again, that Roe v. Wade (or the recent Dobbs) has consequences on liberty — the very heart of the United States of America, whose democratic government is the model of several countries like the Philippines. The essential property and reason for existence of the United States is indeed at stake on the issue of Roe and Dobbs.
American democracy provides for a limited and represented government. Limited government distributes power to different, co-equal branches so that no individual would yield much power. The legislative branch — vested by the Congress — fulfills the representative government, wherein the people elect a few who would represent their interests and aspirations. These representatives have the duty to pass laws that serve the interests of the people.
Meanwhile, the executive branch is vested by the President who is tasked to carry out and enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch. Lastly, the judicial branch, vested by the Supreme Court, is tasked to interpret laws and resolve conflicts with the law and the constitution.
No branch has absolute power and no branch has authority over another. This is what the American democratic structure boasts of. The people of the United States and those of other countries who follow the American model believe that this structure protects liberty by preventing one person (or group of persons) to authoritatively rule the entire country, and ensures that everyone is represented in the government. However, the U.S. Supreme Court just did the opposite back in 1973.
Amidst a highly divided nation, the Supreme Court ended debates by the people and by their representatives on whether or not abortion should be legalized and took the matter into their own hands. The voices of philosophers, ethicists, medical practitioners, social workers, women, and other experts from both sides of the debate were ignored and nine unelected officials who, unlike Congress, could not summon these experts during their hearings, decided on the issue by themselves.
In Roe, the judicial branch answered questions such as: What laws are needed by the country to serve certain interests? What laws are required to face the current socio-economic conditions? When does life begin? When is a fetus viable outside the womb? Is abortion ethical?
The first two questions are the kind of questions that Congress (not the Supreme Court) has to answer, being a policy-maker. It is their task to call for studies on the social situation and make moves to address these situations by crafting legislation. “How many women are having unwanted pregnancies?” “What should we do for these women?” “If we make abortion accessible for them, will it solve their problem?“ “Does legalizing abortion benefit the national economy?”
On the other hand, it could not be ignored that passing an abortion legislation in Congress would be difficult — or even impossible. As today, the U.S. Congress has been highly divided on the matter. For example, last May, the U.S. Senate failed to codify Roe v. Wade into law, with only 49 senators (out of 100) voting in favor of it. This, however, shows that the legislature is indeed representing the people, since even the people are highly divided on the matter. Opinion polls show that since Roe was decided in 1973, only around fifty to sixty percent of Americans are in favor of legalizing abortion. Hence, the “close fight” in Congress mirrors the “close fight” in public opinion when it comes to the issue of abortion. This is a good exercise of democracy, wherein the people from both sides are all represented in Congress, and the representatives are indeed serving the interest of whom they represent. On the other hand, when the Supreme Court decided Roe, they closed rooms for dissent and invalidated the views of the other half of the people as if they are unworthy of representation.
The next three questions (on the beginning of life, on fetal viability, and on ethics) are the kind of questions that the Supreme Court obviously cannot answer. Why would nine legal practitioners know anything about these biological, medical, and ethical concepts, while experts in this field could not even give a conclusive answer? Again, the best course of action is to let Congress discuss the issue. Let Congress invite representatives from various sectors in the biological and medical field and let contrasting views debate in their halls. Should this had happened, the people from either sides were represented, the co-equality of the three branches was respected, and democracy was upheld.
However, since the Supreme Court did the opposite, they assumed authority over the representatives of the people and acted as if they are more powerful than their supposed co-equal. Contrary to the mandate of American democracy, less than nine people (i.e., those who concurred in Roe) rose to power and prevented the people from making discussions, thereby acting like authoritarian leaders in the likes of Ferdinand Marcos, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler, who all took authority over the government, refused to listen to the people, and closed rooms for discussion by the people. These are acts that should not be done in a democratic government, especially not in a country that is a paradigm for modern democracy. By deciding to overturn Roe today, the Supreme Court has apologized for being authoritarian and for insulting democracy fifty years ago, and returned to the path towards a government of the people.
