It is unprecedented but a draft opinion of an, as of yet, unreleased Supreme Court opinion has been leaked to the press in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That’s a Mississippi case that outlaws abortions after 15 weeks. The decision is reputed to uphold the Mississippi law thereby overturning nearly 50 years of precedent set by Roe v. Wade and upheld in other cases, most notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The Roe decision was handed down on January 22, 1973 in a 7-2 decision. The Justices at that time ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the penumbra of individual rights in the 9th Amendment created a constitutional right to privacy that included the right to an abortion. Because the ruling said abortion was a “constitutional right”, no pre-existing State or Federal law could be enforced nor any new legislation enacted to ban abortions.
The Roe decision divided pregnancy into three trimesters. In the first trimester it was nobody’s business but the mother, her doctor and God whether or not she had an abortion. In the second trimester the State had an interest in regulating abortion for the safety of the mother but couldn’t ban the procedure. In the third trimester the developing child’s rights were to be paramount except in extreme cases; for instance where the mother’s life would be in jeopardy by carrying to term, as an example.
Several religious groups lobbied for and supported the right to abortion fifty years ago. In the Ecumenical Study Document on Abortion published in 1978 the American Baptist Church position was quoted as, “Abortion should be a matter of personal decision.” The Southern Baptists supported abortion as well, reasoning that if the government could poke its nose into something as deeply personal and individual as pregnancy then the government may also feel it could do the same with a person’s religious convictions and worship options. The American Lutheran Church said, “We recognize the freedom of responsibility of individuals to make their own choices in light of the best information available to them and their understanding of God’s Will for their lives.” Even conservative, traditional sects like the Church of the Brethren were behind the right to abortion stating, “We support women, who after prayer, believe abortion is the least destructive alternative available to them. Women should make the decision openly, honestly without suffering imposed by an uncompromising community.”
Roe was the Law of the Land until the Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. The Court upheld the right to abortion but struck down the trimester scheme that Roe had set up. Instead the standard was now an “undue burden” test. If a State or Federal law created an “undue burden” for a woman in obtaining an abortion then the law was unconstitutional. Following the Casey decision is when; waiting periods, parental consent with judicial review and other restrictions and regulations of abortion began to appear in States’ legal codes around the country.
Now, if the press reports and the published draft of the Supreme Court decision can be believed, the constitutional right to abortion will be struck down by either a vote of 5-4 or 6-3 (it was unclear from the leak what Chief Justice John Roberts’ position will be). The Pew Research Center did a poll and asked Americans if Roe should be “completely overturned”; a resounding 63% of respondents said, “NO” while 37% replied, “YES”.
There are actually four positions on abortion – pro-life, anti-abortion, pro-choice and pro-abortion.
The Pope, for example, is truly pro-life because in order to be pro-life one must believe several things only one of which is that all babies, regardless of the circumstances of their conception (rape, for example), risk to the life or health of the mother or genetic defect of the infant etc. – all babies get to be born, no matter what. However, that’s not all there is to being “pro-life”. In addition to the view that “every sperm is sacred”, one must also believe that all existence is precious not just exclusively unborn life; so, no death penalty no matter how egregious the crime and no assisted suicide or mercy killing must be the immutable moral stance of one who professes to be “pro-life”.
On the other hand, while lots of people aren’t pro-life they are anti-abortion; they’re happy to give the needle to a murderer but feel that life should always be protected in-utero without exception. However, after asking a few “what if…” questions it’s clear that many people who proclaim themselves as anti-abortion are really pro-choice.
If you’re for a woman having a “choice” in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother then you’re pro-choice. The vast majority of people I know hate abortion as birth control but are perfectly happy with it as a medical procedure. These folks find little wrong with abortion used in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. Many also justify abortion in cases where the fetal life is compromised by a devastating genetic condition, often only detectible late into the pregnancy. They also recognize that there are times when a child is desperately wanted and tremendously loved but medical conditions and considerations intervene to make abortion a heart wrenching, but logical and necessary, choice.
Then there are those who are pro-abortion. They believe that a woman’s body is her own and females should be in charge of their destiny at any stage of the pregnancy. Pro-abortion advocates believe it is all about the woman and her preferences and babies have no rights until they are actually born so late term abortions are perfectly acceptable to these people.
I view abortion as akin to amputation. We don’t want doctors to perform amputations as a first choice or willy-nilly. However, there are extreme circumstances where amputations are appropriate, even life saving. The government shouldn’t be in the position of banning medical procedures that could save your life. The same holds true for abortion. Abortion should be rare and considered as a medical procedure rather than as a convenient form of birth control.
If you applaud the banning of all abortions, I respect your position. However, then I assume that you’re happy that welfare, daycare, educational, insurance and other expensive programs funded by the taxpayer exist to help poor children and single parents. Naturally as a pro-life or anti-abortion person you are also then a foster or adoptive parent, perhaps of several children. I assume you sing on the way to the courthouse to pay your property taxes grateful that it helps support county poor relief and those unfortunate children that benefit from that program. You’re probably giddy with glee when filing your income taxes delighted in the knowledge that your money helps provide federal funding to support needy children and families.
If government is going to tell someone who doesn’t want a baby or can’t afford the care needed or is reluctant to go through with a pregnancy because the child will have special needs then society at large must accept partial responsibility socially and financially for those children. Actions have consequences and in a civilized society the weak and the helpless are not abandoned. Morally and ethically one can’t tell people they must be parents and then sit back and just watch as unwanted children go unprovided and uncared for. For fifty years unwanted pregnancies have been an individual’s personal business and burden, when Roe is overturned it will become society’s responsibility. I hope people realize that fact and are indeed ready for the moral and financial liability that overturning Roe will mean for society generally and for themselves personally.