What College Students Think About Abortion

Editor’s Note: In this Future View, students discuss abortion. Next week, we will ask, “The mental health problems — and even the increased suicide rates — among young people over the past decade are worrisome. Are these problems due to the segregation of social media? Worried from economic conditions and the pandemic? Is the sense of purpose in people’s lives fading? “ Students should click here to submit comments of less than 250 words by May 17. The best answers will be published that night.

Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and let the American people decide on abortion. Judge Samuel Alito’s legal arguments in the draft decision are sound and commendable. He correctly realized that defense Roe Relying on precedent is unacceptable. Not only do Roe itself defies precedent with shameless audacity, but like Plessy sues Ferguson, The decision was “seriously wrong from the start.” RoeIts constitutionality is at best flimsy and even worse divisive.

Unfortunately, President Biden attacked the leaked draft, calling it a “radical decision”. Such so-called radicalism, however, is exactly what is needed from the courts. Only a court can unequivocally conclude the controversial chapter of law Roe inaugurated in 1973. The court’s apparent willingness to waive a measure of power for the sake of constitutional principle is encouraging. Such a step would help it “survive the stench,” to use Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s words, of constitutional adventurism.

No serious person would expect a reversal to solve the problem immediately. But reverse Roe will create space for all Americans to decide democratically about how to meet the needs of vulnerable women and unborn children. Restoring voters to their legal choice would be a wise, fair and personal choice.

—Jakob Haws, Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson Law (JD)

Keeping women’s choice

Justice Alito’s draft decision in Dobbs sues Jackson Women’s Health Organization demonstrates the dangers of constitutional primordialism in our ever-changing society. Originalists examine the purpose of the Constitution and the historical evidence surrounding the period. Primitiveism is often praised for its well-founded and limited judicial power. Our nation’s highest court is run by nine life, unelected judges, so any incentive for judicial restriction is commendable.

Overturned Roe However, on an original basis there will be serious implications for our society. If a decades-old precedent can be overturned by primitiveist arguments, so can others. How do we know what rights we can depend on? And how can we trust the legitimacy of our justice system if exposed cases can be uncovered half a century later?

This decision would undermine the importance of precedent and thus create distrust in our judicial system, which violates the originalist nature of the decision itself. . Fundamental rights cannot be left to the states and must be protected by the Supreme Court. A lively constitutionalist interpretation, such as that of Justice Stephen Breyer, that combines the fine aspects of originalism with an appropriate respect for current social things. . From this understanding, the Constitution actually protects women’s right to choose. We must urge the court to respect precedent and approach this case using vivid constitutionalism to preserve this indispensable right and maintain public confidence in our judicial authority. we.

—Ally Fertig, Cornell University, history

Let it come to the US

In Amanda Ripley’s book “High Conflict,” she makes the principle that although conflict can be beneficial, there are times when healthy conflict turns into high conflict. In this stage, we are confident that our position is right, that the other position is immoral, even evil, and that those who agree with us are good, and those who are not.

Much of domestic politics is currently highly conflicted, and the Supreme Court returning the abortion question to the states is an opportunity to disrupt that pattern.

Liberals and conservatives both argue that the worst intentions can be motivated by each other, with the left arguing that the right wants to cause a backwardness in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, and Rightists believe that leftists have no value in human life. In fact, conservatives value potential life, and libertarians place a higher value on individual autonomy.

These discussions are best left to the states, where policymakers and citizens can engage in discussion and persuasion to find out what each state values ​​more. The legislature – not the judiciary – is the right place for democratic debates to take place. This, after all, is the purpose of our federal system, and will certainly allow our high-conflict to evolve into a healthier system.

—Luke Kennedy, University of Iowa, law (JD)

Do not overturn Roe

Opponents of inversion often cite the regress of women’s rights, but the reversal of Roe would also weaken the judiciary. Roe’s decision to v. Wade, reinforced in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, provides the Supreme Court with an important framework for protecting women’s reproductive rights. According to a recent ABC poll, a majority of Americans continue to support the promotion of Roe. There is no apparent shift in social conditions that calls for a reconsideration of the 50-year-old precedent.

Past decisions should only be overturned when there is a significant change in public sentiment. The most famous example of precedent being overturned is Brown’s 1954 decision against the Board of Education, in which the court, encouraged by the civil rights movement, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson to establish a mandate constitutional service for segregation.

America has been unprecedentedly politicized in recent years, and overturning Roe would exacerbate this crisis and call into question the legitimacy of the courts.

—Long Tran-Bui, Swarthmore College, politics, philosophy, and economics

End the infringement of justice

Abortion has long been divisive, but I believe all Americans should be proud of this draft opinion. It tackles abuses of power by the judiciary.

The creation of the Constitution accomplished two main tasks: It established a powerful body of federal power with the capacity to perform essential functions, and at the same time prevented tyranny by protecting the natural by the individual and by the rights of the states. Federalism is an important part of this system, distributing power to limit its excesses. The 10th Amendment sets its guidelines by delegating powers not delegated to the Constitution to the states and the people.

Whether one believes that there is an inherent right to privacy, it is an indisputable fact that the word “abortion” is absent from the Constitution. Thus, the 10th Amendment requires that abortion laws be returned to the states.

In 1803, the case of Marbury sues Madison established that judicial oversight would be the primary function of the Supreme Court. Over time, the courts have become politicized, with judicial activists operating from the bench. Abortion is a central example.

This leaked draft opinion is a victory over judicial activism and federal overreach. Policy making belongs to the legislature, not to the courts. This ruling will advance democracy, empower the American people, and uphold the integrity of the Constitution.

—Allie Orgen, Yeshiva University, political science

Roe upside down is just the first step

The new frontier for the pro-life movement will likely be a battle between states to combat outlawed abortion. This is a welcome change from the status quo, as the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade is the result of naked judicial activity. By sending the debate back to the legislative branch where it belongs, the Supreme Court brought the abortion issue back into line with the Constitution.

But this is the wrong reason to be happy about Roe’s the death of. Americans should celebrate sending Roe into the ashes of history as it is the first step in restoring their God-given right to life to their unborn children. To submit to the natural rights of anyone, including unborn children, to the whims of the majority is contrary to our nation’s founding ideals.

Our form of government must deal with the difficult tension between democracy, the idea that governments derive their power from the consent of liberals and libertarians, the idea that those under control have certain inalienable rights. While it is important for the government to respond to the people, there are certain things that cannot be put up for a vote. If 51%, 75% or even 99% of the people in a territory believe that a minority does not deserve to live or be free, that does not mean that the minority should be denied those rights.

This principle should guide the one-off abortion debate Roe turned upside down: Babies have a right to life, and voters’ trust in a state doesn’t take that away.

—Charles Hilu, University of Michigan, political science

Click here to submit feedback for next week’s Future View.

The Editorial Review: Three Reasons An Abortion Judgment Won’t Affect Same-Sex Marriage. Image: Getty Images / AP Composite: Mark Kelly

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-college-students-think-about-abortion-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-decision-pro-life-choice-draft-leak-11652215131 What College Students Think About Abortion

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