Last week the Court, as expected, overturned Roe v. Wade. Reactions are, as expected, mixed. The “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments of the last 50 years resurface as women, states, churches, and others scramble to pronounce their points of view. The decision is likely to play a significant role in the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Much has been written about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe. Technically, the decision does not ban abortion. Instead, it rescinds the right to an abortion and sends the regulation of abortion to the states. Because at least 22 states already have banned or severely restricted abortions, the decision effectively bans abortions for millions of women. Thousands of women will be forced to birth babies they had determined they did not want or were unable to care for.
While many have focused on the legal arguments of Dobbs, I reflect more on the logical inconsistencies reflected in a court that has effectively banned abortion but still allows the death penalty. Similarly, the decision will result in thousands of babies being born that may lead lives of misery not just because their mothers were unprepared to raise them (or didn’t want to), but because of poverty.
The Declaration of Independence references the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many babies born because of Dobbs may not have much of a life, may have extremely limited liberty, and may be denied the pursuit of happiness. Of course, many such babies may lead happy, healthy, productive lives despite being “unwanted children.”
Some babies born as a result of Dobbs may eventually commit capital crimes and be put to death by the government. Ironically, some of the younger justices on the Court, including the Trump Trio of Gorsuch (54 years old), Kavanaugh (57 years old), and Barrett, (50 years old), may still be on the Court when appeals of death sentences of some of the babies (now adults) will reach the Supreme Court. Ironically, the same justices who effectively forced their mothers to unwillingly give them birth will vote to let them be executed.
Another deeply troubling aspect of the decision is the matter of effectively forcing the birth of human beings and then not caring for them. If you adopt a dog and then abuse it by not feeding it, giving it proper shelter, or otherwise treating it in a humane manner, you can be prosecuted. The concept is that when you adopt a dog, you accept a slate of responsibilities. In the case of an unwanted child, a child born because a woman was unable to get an abortion after concluding she did not want or was unable to care for the child, the state (the government) is responsible for the child being born. Shouldn’t the state be responsible for ensuring the child receives proper healthcare, an education, and the right to “pursue happiness?”
I am angry at Republicans and religious zealots who champion the “right to life” but oppose universal healthcare, spending on education, job, and income security, and other “basic human rights.” Those people championing the “sanctity of life,” are hypocrites, in my view, when they force babies to be born without also championing the “right to live.”
Child poverty in the U.S. is a disgrace. Eighteen percent of all children live in poverty—thirteen million children. The Supreme Court’s decision, coupled with the hypocrisy of the Court and others in not somehow ensuring that the babies forced to be born are not doomed to join the thirteen million, is effectively denying the “right to live” for many of these babies.
A final reflection on the decision is that it suggests the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution may be broken or obsolete. The Court returned the decision on whether to permit abortions to the States based on a controversial reading of the Constitution and its amendments. That result is contrary to the wishes of 65 percent of the population. Is it too much to suggest Dobbs is evidence of Constitutional dysfunction?
The disconnect between the current Supreme Court and the wishes of much of the country suggests that it may be time to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution. Should Justices be subject to term limits? Should the process of amending the Constitution be made simpler to facilitate the adoption of amendments to establish rights such as same-sex and interracial marriage, or the right to contraception and abortion? These are tough questions, but they are becoming increasingly “ripe for consideration.”
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.
Carol L chisholm says
The court did its job, ruling on constitutionality. Want an abortion right? Add it to the bill of rights. Anyone still understand how our forefathers set up such a brilliant democratic republic? Not a democracy – the wishes of 65% ( where did that number come from?) is irrelevant at this stage. If true,those individuals get to vote in members of Congress who agree with them, get to work on an addition to the Bill of Rights. Maybe we should mandate civics lessons for voters. BTW: action against civil servants is contrary to the constitution as is violence. States reflect the wishes of citizens which is why (Maryland) has a liberal abortion law and Texas does not.
Michael Davis says
Due to gerrymandering, few states allow their citizens to vote for candidates that reflect the will of the majority. And the Supreme Court is fine with that.
Most people who have taken civics lessons know that.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Sorry Carole, one’s Constitutional right does not, should not, depend on one’s zip code. Alito is a stupid man:
“ the right to an abortion is not something rooted in
our history and culture”
Benjamin Franklin gave instructions for in home abortions in a book in the 1700’s.
Not only was abortion widespread, it was acknowledged
as accepted practice. And abortion has been accepted practice since time began. War, famine ? Women took herbs and concoctions so that the family could survive.
Do you have issue with a women deciding what is best for her? Do you want that women to decide what you should do in extremely personal decisions?
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion- ben-Franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece and for your comment.
I would welcome certain rights being added to the Bill of Rights. Until that happens, I remain concerned that Dobbs will result in the birth of thousands of children to mothers without the means or ability to care for them.
Stephen Schaare says
Mr. Dean, How do you feel about birth control? Steve
John Dean says
I’m for it.
Gerry Early says
One aspect of the abortion situation that hasn’t received the attention it deserves is regarding the very different frequency of abortions in different racial/ethnic groups. I just checked online, and a report from the Guttmacher Institute says that among women aged 15-44 the incidence of abortion per 1000 women is 27.1 for Black women,18.1 for Hispanic women, and 10.0 for White women. So the rate for African American women is almost three times more than for White women.
Since about half the states already have or are working up laws that will eliminate or severely restrict abortion, and many/most of them are in the South, it is clear that they are going to have a very large increase in minority births and thus the proportion of Black and Hispanic population in years to come. I wonder if those state legislatures understand that, or if is this one of those so-called unintended consequences.
Deirdre LaMotte says
You do know that abortion is going nowhere, right?
There will be women dying but if one cannot support
a pregnancy for whatever reason, she will abort.
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Gerry, Why do I never see any mention of birth control? Never.
Could only help, correct? Steve
Deirdre LaMotte says
Birth control is never 100% reliable. Besides, these Christian-fascists going to ban contraception next.
It is not about a group of cells. It is about being punitive, cruel and taking a woman’s self power away.
Stephen Schaare says
Deidre, If birth control could reduce unwanted children by 1% I would be pleased. Any reduction is a good thing.
I suspect too many folks are just too lazy. Steve
Deirdre LaMotte says
Wow, that is absurd. If you have at any time carried a pregnancy, it is 30% more dangerous than an early abortion. No one takes this lightly, and to imply otherwise places you squarely in the “welfare queen”
mindset debunked 40 years ago. And so what if a woman has a number of abortions? It is her body not yours.
Women are certainly not interested your private anatomy decisions, believe me.
Let the State try mandatory vasectomies for all males and watch the hue and cry.
Stephen Schaare says
Deirdre, I am confused. I was promoting birth control. This could reduce the number of women carrying a child. Huh? Steve
Dennis Smith says
Can you please run for district 1.