Abortion Goes Back to the People

Can America still settle its political conflicts democratically and peacefully? We’ll find out in a moment after the Supreme Court overturned on Friday Roe v. calf and returned the profound moral issue of abortion to states and democratic consent where it always belonged.

Critics criticize the court’s 6:3 decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is governed by unelected judges. But Roe was the real “exercise of brute force of justice,” as Justice Byron White contradictorily put it in 1973. At the time, seven judges claimed to find a constitutional right to abortion that is mentioned nowhere in the constitution and had no common history in America’s law. The court on Friday finally corrected its mistake that damaged the court’s legitimacy and ignited our politics for 49 years.

The majority of judges deserve credit for standing by their convictions despite the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in May. The leak was likely intended to attract attention in order to pressure judges to change their minds, and it has led to protests outside their homes and even an apparent assassination attempt on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. By standing firm, they showed that the court would not be intimidated.


Judge Alito’s majority opinion follows his draft closely, and it is a careful, thoughtful examination of abortion law and its history in the constitutional order. His opinion dissects, stone by logical stone, the argument roe and Planned Parenthood vs. Caseythe other major abortion precedent the court is overriding Dobbs.

The key point stressed by Judge Kavanaugh in his approval is that abortion is nowhere in the Constitution. Parchment is neutral on this issue. Proponents of an abortion right claim to have found it in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. But up until the second half of the 20th century, the idea of ​​abortion rights was nowhere to be found in America. No state constitution contained it, and until recently roe no court had recognized such a right. Judge Harry Blackmun ignored this story and invented the law roe.

Casey entrenched roe in 1992, but ignoring that history while claiming that abortion is part of an opaque right to privacy that includes “intimate and personal choices.” The three controlling judges in Casey tried to balance that right against the “potential life” of a baby in the womb.

But her judgment of how to find that balance eclipsed the moral choices of millions of Americans. “Our nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent elected officials from deciding how to regulate abortion,” Judge Alito writes.

The three dissenting judges claim the majority overruled the doctrine rigid decision, or respect for precedents. But Judge Alito’s opinion takes a step-by-step approach to the tradition of the court rigid decision analysis, and that is his most telling point roe and Casey I haven’t come close to solving the problem.

The controlling judges in Casey went so far as to make an essentially political plea for Americans to let their judgment govern the abortion issue. It was a vain attempt to end debate on an issue that touches people’s deepest moral beliefs. Abortion continues to rock American politics, and states continue to pass laws that challenge the logic of both opinions. If, after five decades, a judgment is still controversial and unenforceable, that’s compelling evidence that it was wrongly decided.


Chief Justice John Roberts writes in a consensus that the court should not have overturned roe in this case, to uphold Mississippi’s abortion ban at 15 weeks. He says it would have been more judicially humble and less jarring to the public.

We agree on his point about maintaining the Mississippi statute, but such a halfway decision would only have been a legal hold. More states would have written more laws challenging them roe and Casey, and sooner or later the Court should have overruled both or maintained part of them as permanent law. Better to seize this opportunity to return the issue to the states sooner rather than later.

The political left makes much of Justice Clarence Thomas’s argument that the Court should review all of its precedents based on the application of substantive due process to find rights in the Constitution. These include precedents on contraception and gay marriage.

Substantive due process is a longstanding concern of Judge Thomas, and we respect him for it. But the doctrine is also deeply embedded in countless court precedents that are far better rigid decision claims than does roe. overturn the upper skin A decision on gay marriage, for example, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of legal marriage contracts. That is the definition of a legitimate interest justification for maintaining a precedent. Judge Thomas also recognizes in his approval that abortion is different from these cases, noting that no other justice has shared his opinion.


Which brings us back to abortion and democracy policies. The debate will now shift from the courts to politics about what should be healthy for the judiciary. Democrats made it clear on Friday that they will make abortion rights a key campaign issue in the midterm elections, and President Biden declared that “it’s not over yet.”

Fair enough. Both sides of the abortion debate must now reach their political goal the old-fashioned way—by persuasion, not by injunction. Some in the pro-life movement want Congress to ban abortion nationwide. But that will seem hypocritical to many Americans after decades of Republicans claiming that repeal roe would return the issue to the states.

A nationwide ban can also be an unconstitutional encroachment on state police powers and federalism. Imposing the abortion values ​​of Mississippi or Texas on all 50 states could prove as unpopular as New York or California attempting to do the same for abortion rights.

A tragedy of roe is that it preempted an abortion debate that swept the States half a century ago. This debate can now continue. Some states will ban it in most cases, while others, like California, might try to pay for abortions by women from other states.

It will take time and more than one election, but we hope that the public, through their legislators, will eventually find acceptable consensus, if not common ground. That’s the best we can ask for in our imperfect republic, if we can keep it.

Wonderland: The End of Roe erodes the very foundations not only of abortion, but of an entire philosophy of American governance that was born with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” 50 years ago. Image: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-goes-back-to-the-people-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-dobbs-v-jackson-samuel-alito-11656107148 Abortion Goes Back to the People

Alley Einstein

USTimesPost.com is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@ustimespost.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button