Last month, the US Senate blocked the Women’s Health Protection Act. The WHPA was a flailing attempt to codify abortion rights while the US Supreme Court decides Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—a case that could overturn the abortion rights upheld in Roe v. Wade.
Few issues incite constituent passion like abortion. Many single-issue voters are voting in accordance with their abortion views—even when doing so cuts against their economic interests. And many voters, drawing on religious or social conviction, approach abortion with moral absolutism: it’s wrong; Or it’s right.
I’m Pro-Choice for a few reasons: Maintaining high access to affordable and safe abortions is a vital public health interest; I don’t find the religious and moral Pro-Life arguments compelling; The US has a paltry social safety net, leaving many unable to responsibly afford to raise a child; I just don’t think you should have to carry and birth a child if you don’t want to.
In the US, we rely on the judiciary to uphold abortion. It’s weird. And it’s weak. In much of Europe, legislatures have codified abortion laws. Like Italy, whose Parliament passed a bill legalizing abortion in 1978. Or Sweden, who passed the Abortion Act of 1974. France codified the Veil Law. Portugal has a law. Belarus has a law. Norway. Spain.
In the US, we have no federal law upholding a women’s right to an abortion. (After last month’s Senate vote on the WHPA, it doesn’t look like a law is happening anytime soon.) Instead, Americans rely on the Supreme Court precedent from Roe v Wade (plus Planned Parenthood v. Carey). Yet, banking on Roe to maintain abortion for America’s 166 million women is ridiculous. In principle: granting nine unelected justices’ sole discretion over abortion rights is inherently undemocratic; and in practice: the constitutional interpretation from Roe is complete nonsense, bound to be overturned.
Roe v. Wade holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, namely the “right to privacy,” preserves a woman’s right to have an abortion (before viability). I’m not a textualist but that seems like a pretty expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seemingly, the Roe decision wasn’t about a faithful interpretation of the constitution. No, the Roe decision was about upholding abortion rights—which, of course, is not the judiciary’s job. I’m all for upholding abortion rights, but you’ve gotta do it the right way. Distorting the constitution to meet a preexisting agenda—aka judicial activism—ain’t the right way, regardless of whether you appreciate the outcome.
Right now, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is pending. In Dobbs, the plaintiffs contend that “the conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition.” That sounds like it could be a winning argument. So, when the majority agrees, it won’t be because of “fascism” or Trump (More blame will lie with the Bush dynasty who courted evangelical pro-lifers as a right-wing voting bloc). It will be because Roe’s ruling doesn’t make much sense. So, when Roe is struck down, abortion rights are imperiled, and Mississippi teens are performing at-home abortions with a mirror and some wire hanger, don’t blame Brett Kavanaugh. Blame your elected legislators–and blame the left for failing to get legislators elected in the first place.
Be First to Comment