American exceptionality does not apply to a woman’s right to choose, except in the most negative of interpretations. The Western Democracies have basically settled this issue, and for the last 50 years we thought we had overcome this contentious pinata.
If one believes that life begins at conception, the basic argument of the pro-life lobby, then abortion is a sin, an evil, a killing of a potential human being having no choice in the matter. This being will never exist, will never see the light of day, the first suckling of their mother’s breast, their first kiss, their first ball catch, their first love, the warmth of a fireplace, the gentle fall of rain from the heavens. That life has been snuffed out for eternity.
If you believe that life begins at viability, 28 weeks as delineated in Roe v. Wade, that a woman is entitled to her own choice concerning an unwanted pregnancy, or whose life is at stake, or that the social implications of back-alley abortions outweigh their moral opprobrium, then Roe should be upheld. Poor and disadvantaged, mostly minority women, will be forced to carry a baby to term, even if she is raped, even if the father is absent, even if she cannot afford to put food on the table or milk in the bottle because enraged political tribes, advocating freedom from government, following a distorted social polemic, wish the government to impose carrying a child to term, unwanted, uncared for, and unfed.
The magnitude of the political implications of the decision have been going round and round for 50 years. Jurists agonize whether the constitution specifies a right to privacy, and whether that right is an “emanation from the penumbra” of it. Valid legal arguments exist on both sides of the issue. And the constitution really is what the Supreme Court of the United States says it is, evolving, textual, or original. As I listened to the arguments advanced by both sides, I was happy that I was not going to decide. No matter the decision, a large portion of the population will vociferously disagree, and like, Donald Trump, will stick around like some enraged toxic cement. Analyzing federalism as a determinant of a woman being able to choose whether to abort early on seems like intellectual masturbation. Both sides present valid legal arguments as we know that the decision will be based on the faux sanctimony of the justices own beliefs, just as it was in Plessy v. Ferguson or in Dred Scott depriving rights, rather than conferring them, as in Brown v. Board of Education, noting that “separate but equal being inherently unequal.”
Clearly, the right answer is illusive and equally clear will be the consequences if Roe is overturned or eroded, or incrementally chipped away. Poor people living in the former confederate states, for the most part will be deprived of the rights set forth in Roe; economically comfortable people will fly to a blue state to get an abortion.
Ross Douthat, of the New York Times argues that laws preventing abortions have resulted in fewer abortions, buttressing his conventional arguments, that killing an embryo is the killing of a human organism and that women can still find work if they persevere despite childbearing, but mentions nothing about the state providing sustenance for unwanted babies. This agrees with most GOP legislators, be they from Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas. And do not forget our former president, although heaven knows how many abortions he financed.
Meanwhile Republicans in Congress, still believe that children can carry guns, semi-automatic rifles and large ammo clips to shoot up their schools, kill their classmates, reaping the harvest of death that pro-life advocates decry, with no regard for the social consequences that the prohibitions will evoke.
The rest of the world, except some authoritarian states in the Mid-East, laugh at the cognitive dissonance of our political class, including a supposedly apolitical Supreme Court of the United States.
We need term limits of 18 years on Supreme Court Justices, and in that way, each President will get two choices for a new Justice, consequently the Stonewalling of a nominee will become more difficult. And Congress should codify national abortion rights, as most of the public favors those rights, despite what they think in Mississippi, Texas and Alabama.
