Planned Parenthood and Democrats who take their special-interest campaign contributions that exceed $737,000 annually hail Roe v Wade as a landmark case that gave women “the right to choose.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
The 1973 case did not carve out a constitutional right to have an abortion. It established the government possessed only a limited interest in protecting an unborn child’s rights that increased as the baby approached viability outside the mother. In essence, the U.S. Supreme Court orchestrated something of a balancing act between the mother’s right to privacy and the unborn child’s constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Even in granting this speciously reasoned right to abortion privacy, legal scholars have yet to craft a sensible defense of the precedent rooted in the U.S. Constitution.
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers … and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes,” Justice William Rehnquist wrote in dissent.
The 1970s court looked to science and determined that the fetus enjoyed basic protections as the pregnancy progressed. During the second trimester, the government’s interest in the child grew and by the third trimester, an intervention was squarely on the table. But because medical science now allows first-trimester unborn children the ability to survive outside the womb and tests such as ultrasounds demonstrate human heartbeats, many believe Roe v Wade needs revisiting. That’s precisely what legal experts anticipate after the five conservative supreme court justices allowed a Texas law to go into effect prohibiting abortions after six weeks.
“We do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit,” an unsigned court order reportedly states. “In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law.”
In other words, the 5-4 decision will let the Texas heartbeat law ride in anticipation of future legal challenges.
The high court has consistently declined to allow first-trimester prohibitions to stand based on the Roe standard set nearly a half-century ago. Even those who consider Roe bad or outdated law were stunned by the willingness of the 2021 justices to open a veritable Pandora’s Box of legislative shifts and political upheaval.
“The game has changed,” Right to Life East Texas director Mark Lee Dickson reportedly said. “Is this going to affect the rest of America? Absolutely.”
Other majority pro-life states have already begun crafting bills that mirror Texas’ law, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rallied Democrats to push through federal abortion-on-demand legislation. Pelosi is misleading her constituents by insinuating a federal law would override a decision made by the high court. That’s largely why other Democrats want to orchestrate a political coup of the judicial system and pack the court with a majority that will push through their agendas.
It may be a hard pill for anti-Trumpers to swallow, but the former president may have understood the Roe problem better than most politicians and even legal scholars. With no clear constitutional basis for Roe, abortion law authority defaults to individual states. The states routinely pass different laws regarding seemingly personal privacy matters such as marijuana usage. Although abortion is a high-stakes issue, the legal reasoning remains the same. Although some states will allow it and others will disallow abortion, having the procedure would only require women to drive across state lines.
It seems the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court understands Roe’s reasoning has become outdated, at least the portions regarding viability outside the womb. The court and country have been on a collision course with Roe v Wade for nearly 50 years. If not now, when?