Modern weaponry and political rhetoric have a lot in common.
Several years ago, I was shooting sporting clays with a much younger man, an Afghan war veteran. He had been trained on automatic or semi-automatic military weapons. My training (mostly by experience) was shooting one shotgun shell at a time. My aim had to be more exact; he could spray the zone of the target.
Now don’t get me wrong. First, this is not a column about ballistics. Yet, most of us are familiar with stories about rapid fire technology and adrenalin—unfortunately that is where many of us are in politics.
The Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade had nationalized abortion policy and its reversal triggered expected reactions. Indeed, the leak of a draft some weeks before resulted in demonstrations at the homes of Justices of the United States Supreme Court and apparently, a botched attempt to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Much of the news after the decision could have been written after a hard fought and won legislative battle. It had a certain “sharks and skins” dynamic. It was about outcomes; constitutional arguments be damned. Justices that voted to overturn Roe were vilified. Justice Clarence Thomas came in for especially harsh treatment.
Interestingly, Justice Sonia Sotomayor who voted in the minority had recently spoke of her relationship with Justice Thomas. She noted that the two share a “common understanding about people and kindness.” She continued: “That’s why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our differences of opinions in cases, You really can’t begin to understand an adversary unless you step away from looking at their views as motivated in bad faith.”
Perhaps it is easier for someone with a law background to be more detached. I get that. But, for all those who want to shape abortion policies, state capitals are the new venues. Unless there is a dramatic shift in national politics it is unlikely that abortion policy will be nationalized any time soon.
Few public policy issues are more consequential than abortion policy. Yet the least adaptable institution of government took the policy over fifty years ago. In the intervening years a number of state legislatures yelled at the Supreme Court in the form of restrictive legislation. Much of this legislation was more about politics than dealing with life and death issues.
But now challenging the Supreme Court on abortion policy is past. State legislatures are the authority and must inform themselves on the scientific and societal complexities deeply embedded in the right to choose life or death. This is not a light responsibility; it is one that forces human beings to be at their best.
There are fifty states and there will be fifty answers. Many of the answers will be disconcerting to those with insistence principles. Yet we should never forget America’s history and heterogeneity. While many things unite us, we know that our many layered demography assures sharp differences on some issues. We should never forget that we are at our best when we find it possible to disagree agreeably.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
.
Deirdre LaMotte says
This nation is at a tipping point. Never has a constitutional right been taken away by the Court; one’s freedoms
should not depend on geography. This Court has arrogantly stripped away women’s privacy and left it in the hands of a concentrated few theocratic nuts in Red States.
Just look at the majority’s EPA ruling: they are fine with the world literally burning. All of these decisions
have been decided according to a plan the GOP devised years ago. Now they want the States Legislature to decide
election results. Stay tuned on that one.
Men cause unwanted pregnancies.They are the cause of every abortion. Curtail their freedom, curtail their rights.
Put them on registries, require their DNA, mandatory vasectomies if non-payment of child support. Once society decides that
civil rights and privacy don’t matter, there are many options available. Let us expend these options to men.
Willard T Engelskirchen says
I pretty much agree. We are at a point where the court, with right leaning justices appointed by presidents who did not get majority popular votes, are willing to decide things the majority of our citizens disagree with.
Marilyn Nace says
“Men cause unwanted pregnancies. They are the cause of every abortion. Curtail their freedom, curtail their rights. Put them on registries, require their DNA, mandatory vasectomies if non-payment of child support. Once society decides that civil rights and privacy don’t matter, there are many options available. Let us expend these options to men.”
I’m with you 100%, Deirdre.
Let’s get started.
Stephen Schaare says
Your first two sentences show your understanding of the decision. The Court explained that abortion is NOT a Constitutional right. That was the whole point.
William Dalton says
It may be asking too much to ask the majority of Americans to disagree agreeably with a Supreme Court composed now of a majority selected by political skullduggery. Especially when the made to order majority take away an established Constitutional right, expand a gun rights law based upon a flawed interpretation of the second amendment, and strike down a common sense attempt to curb the threat of extinction of the planet by global warming. It may very well be a time to step up and say this is wrong and we the majority of Americans will no longer tolerate these blatant attempts to destroy our democratic republic. We can best do this by voting those responsible out of office. We may need to expand the number of those serving on the Supreme Court. The time for hand wringing is over.
Charles E. Valier says
In reading the responses it is clear that few people can act dispassionately. As long as Americans view matters so politically we will remain deeply divided. Only one person attempted to understand the legal rational. Everyone else
Vilified someone or somebody. Very unnerving and disappointing. Civil discourse is absent from those comments. I fear for my country.
Deirdre LaMotte says
An established right was taken away,
and the reason it was taken away was political. You are twisting the argument.
Political hacks bought and sold by The Federalist Society are destroying this once great nation.
Bob Parker says
While the tradutional mantra has been that the US Supreme Court is “non-partisan” and decides cases on constitutional and not political grounds, scholarly analyses have pretty consistently shown that while members of the court support their decisions/opinions with references to the Constitution, their decisions are generally decided along political and not COnstitutional grounds. “Strict Constructionists”, “textualists” and “Literalists” who claim to base decisions on the text of teh Constitution, change their interpretation of the document to fit their political views on thie issue. Those who believe that the Constitution is a “living” document, likewise have interpreted the Constitution in today’s context politically. The Roe decision was unlikely political in nature but could be supported by an implied right to privacy or covered ubder the equal protection doctrine. While one can note that the Constitution does not specifically mention abortion, one can not ignore that in Roe v Wade the court did establish that abortion was a protected right under the Constitution stare decisis be damned! While a prior court had overturned the Dred Scott and Plessey v Ferguson decisions that upohold slavery, the actions to overturen these decisions expaneded personal freedoms. In contrast, this court’s decision, chose to limit a freedom in their recent decision. This is maarkedly diffenent in nature and scope, and in conjunction with the rececnt gun rights decisions demonstrates the political nature of this court. Early documents discussion how the Supreme Court should be structured did include term limits and maybe now is the time to bring the court into the 21st century by moving forward on this tipic.