Copyright James R Carlson
Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. Roe v Wade and Dobbs v Jackson WHO. The history of the Supreme Court is to overturn prior precedents that have been unfounded and undermine the rights of various people (Blacks and the Unborn). This decision today is a landmark decision with many people making their voices heard. However, the cacophony of rhetoric is mounting to obscure what this decision actually means.
To begin with, the Supreme Court never gave women an absolute right to choose abortion on demand stating in Roe v Wade in 1973,
“On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. “
There was never a right to choose abortion on demand! This is an idea of the left politically, which they parrot as often as they can. But with all the rhetoric comes confusion.
The history of law shows us that codified law is so large that no one can know it all; so, commentaries are developed to simplify what codified law says. But in the process, these commentaries carry more weight in government than the law itself. Also, in the early days of the American republic, Tellers of the law were those people who reported on what was laws were passed by various legislative bodies. These tellers are as important as the law itself because they help us understand what we’re subject to with respect to the law. Unfortunately, when these commentaries and tellers make mistakes, purposely or otherwise, we are at a loss to know what the law actually says and what we’re obligated to do.
From the Supreme Court’s own website, here is what they say today’s decision is all about:
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
As I have been saying for years, if Roe v Wade is overturned, the states will have to return the law that was once dismissed by the Court in 1973. The Laws of Texas prosecuted only elective abortions. Since1973 until now, abortion has been in a state of anarchy without law to govern elective abortions. Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned, the states need to bring back their former laws to prosecute elective abortions.
Along with the return of the law to the issue of abortion, we should also consider why the Court originally overturned the Texas statutes. This was done for both legal and political reasons but on the legal side, the majority of the Court in Roe v Wade sided with plaintiffs and argued that the exemption statute was unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, leaving the doctor/patient relationship liable for prosecution when referrals are made to save a pregnant mother’s life. I agree that abortion should be available when the life of the mother is at risk (mainline pro-life viewpoint). So, let’s make it clear and unambiguous that the doctor/patient relationship should not be jeopardized when referrals for an abortion are made to save the life of the mother. The Court decision today put this issue back in the hands of the states and the people, and the states should do today what they should have done 49 years ago and bring back the statutes that prosecute elective abortion while providing a constitutional exemption for the life of the mother (not health, shoe/dress size, convenience, etc.).
But be forewarned, you will hear every commentator and teller of the law rehearsing their rhetoric in your ears telling you what today’s decision is all about. In the world of the left, this is a disaster. As abortion is about to leave the state of anarchy it has been in for nearly 50 years, the tellers of a woman’s right to choose an abortion on demand will also have to leave the state of anarchy. Rights and responsibilities connect but the argument of the left with abortion is that a woman has rights without responsibilities – aka anarchy. Clearly a woman has a right to choose but as an adult, she also has a responsibility in decision making and there is no right to do what is wrong. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about today’s ruling is that the anarchy surrounding abortion is about to end.
But wait, here come the riots…Really!
Comments