50 Years of Division….Who’s life is it anyway?
By
The Coach John Brent-
Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade got the news immediately that shots were fired at the Presidential motorcade. His name was about to be one that the entire nation would learn about, that horrible weekend of the 22th of November, 1963. Our leader had been gunned down on the downtown streets of Dallas. Wade’s county would become the spotlight of the world because of the killing of the 35th President of the United States, John F Kennedy. was just assassinated in his city. But this wouldn’t be the last time the entire nation would hear his name, and definitely wouldn’t be the reason “why” they would remember his name today and for generations to come.
Most don’t know the background of one of the most notable Supreme Court cases in American History. The name Roe vs Wade sparks emotions, but why? Is it just the moral question? Is it the just privacy issue of a patient and their doctor? So many dynamics are involved in the case politically and judicially. The context of the case has been left out of the argument and many couldn’t even tell you more than the case is about abortion. Many don’t even consider that the case was about a specific argument brought by Norma McCorvey against the DA Henry Wade of Dallas County.
McCorvey was a young woman in 1970 when she got pregnant for the third time. She was 20 years old. Her first pregnancy was at 16, her second was at 18 and she put that child up for adoption. Now being pregnant again she wanted an abortion. She initially concocted a story that she was gang raped and she wanted to cease the pregnancy. In Texas a rape victim could legally get an abortion. Once the authorities figured out that she had lied about being raped, she was refused the right to the abortion. In Dallas County the DA was Henry Wade and his office was the agency that McCorvey and her attorney’s sued.
Two attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, had been looking for a case that they could use to push the abortion issue all the way to the Supreme Court. They were classmate in law school at The University of Texas. They had posed two questions that they would exercise in the case of McCorvey. The first was, Could they be prosecuted for referring a woman an abortion clinic? Second, Could the anti-abortion law in Texas be challenged federally through the court system? They now had their client in McCorvey.
In March 1970, Roe v Wade was filed and it subsequently landed in the lap of the SCOTUS. In early 1973, the court ruled in favor of McCorvey, better known to the world as Roe, that it was her Constitutional right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy because of privacy, among other reasons. Just to finish the story, of course by the time of the ruling McCorvey had already given birth and her baby was put up for adoption.
There are so many ideological differences between a pro-choice and a pro-life person. Many of these are religious and some are just simple beliefs. Many more are considered differences based on being a male or female. Whatever the reason for your stance on this hotbed issue there really isn’t a middle ground; or better yet a compromise that could end the debate. If you grasp any of the other sides argument then it seems you are losing your belief in your own stance. How do you compromise when it comes to ending a life(pro-life) or an embryo(pro-choice) when the difference is life or death?
The uniqueness of the differences is that both sides truly believe the other is evil based on their personal ideological belief in the abortion issue. We love in America a good vs evil scenario. Our movies are filed with this type of battle. Even in our society we have Hip-Hop vs Rock n Roll, Lakers vs Celtics, Cowboys vs Redskins, Yankees vs Red Sox and even Democrats vs Republicans. We love a competition. We desire a reason to prove to our “village” (good) that we are correct and at the same time we love the direct dialogue of trying to prove the other side bad(evil); and that we are on the correct side of the issue. I have said for over a decade that there can be no compromise when it comes to the issue of abortion. I still feel the same way today.
The numbers are staggering- the millions of human beings that would walking and living in the country if there were no abortions. These fetuses would if left alone become a full-term baby and then these babies would be a part of our society. More sons and daughters. More Moms and Dads. More taxpayers. More population for our country. Possibly even more people to become the American dream, or more people for our prison system. We will never know. But we do know that the number of abortions that have been done since 1973, are in the millions.
I am not going to choose a side on the debate in this article, but I will point out the other side of the above scenario. With the right to abort a fetus-child many pro-choice advocates see a woman making a decision for her life. This decision should be a private one for her and her physician and no other. The idea that the fetus (pro-choice stance) is terminated is considered a positive act for the mother, the child to be and even for society. Some of the factors that are looked at by the pro-choice person could e economics, or not finishing their education for a career before becoming a mother, or just a personal decision not to want a child; or another one. Their thinking is, “It is my body and my decision- stay out of my life”. Many people that are against abortion are for their personal privacy when it comes to many other decisions. But, this decision by the pro-choice advocate is theirs to make and it is their private decision not yours…. this is their thinking.
What we aren’t addressing is the reasons for an abortion. Why are we providing so many services to our population today but not when it comes to young women and men making a decision to have sexual relations? There are so many more avenues that could be taken today than in 1973 to prevent the need for an abortion. On the market there are condoms, foams, birth control (many different options), abstinence and even the morning after pill. Where does the personal responsibility of the man and woman that preformed the act come into the picture?
There are more than a couple of Constitutional issues that could be addressed when looking into the right of a woman to abort a pregnancy. From the personal standpoint the 14th Amendment asserts protection for the individual under the “Equal protection clause” and an individual’s privacy. Also, when does the government get to determine the course of action for a woman and her decision to birth or not birth? Why do we even think that others (government and or citizens of the country) get a say so in a person’s decision to keep or abort? Many say that they are speaking for the child that has no voice, but that child won’t get a voice in reality until it is an adult. We protect kids with CPS and law enforcement, and I understand that and we should expect that, but when is it OK for others to come into our home, doctor’s offices and decision making about our personal choices?
The side against Roe vs Wade could look at the original opinion as bad law or a bad opinion by an all-male court led by Justice Blackman in 1973. If we put the abortion question to the 10th Amendment test in reality the states of the woman searching for an abortion, should be the ones determining if and how a woman could abort, not the federal government. If the case doesn’t afford the adequate title of a constitutional right, then any and all regulatory options should be at the state level. This was one of the greatest debates of our founders when trying to decide the role of the federal government in our new government in the late 18th century. The “Federalist Papers” and the “Anti-Federalist” orators debated these concerns with each other and even spread into society for political debate. But, what we had then and should want more than not; is the states to have control over its people more than the federal government.
I am 51 years old. Roe vs Wade has been around almost my entire life. Half a century. I can almost promise that in another half century the debate will still be heated and both sides will still be fighting for their cause. It is an emotion issue. Possibly the most emotional issue ever being discussed the citizens and the three branches of our government. Time will tell where the issue settles, and if it ever does. But one thing is for sure every election cycle sign’s will be held high, with anger and sadness, as both sides of the argument peddle on to the next decision from our government in regards to the abortion issue of the country.
The Coach John Brent
