The United States Supreme Court is at the moment reviewing a case that will reverse Roe v. Wade, which the History web site explains “was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”
The History web site additionally explains that “In May 2022, the nation’s highest court agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, regarding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case presents a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”
The information broke when a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to and printed by Politico. This draft opinion, secretly and wrongly supplied by somebody related to the court docket, has began two large reactions.
One response is outrage that the determination beloved by abortion supporters could also be reversed. The different is disgust and anger that the leak has broken the integrity of the court docket as by no means earlier than in its historical past, and that it was finished by somebody on the inside.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
He additionally wrote that whereas defenders of Roe level to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to justify the determination, they’re mistaken, CNN reported.
“In the draft, Alito batted away arguments that other provisions of the Constitution dealing with privacy or liberty might be relied upon to uphold a right to an abortion,” the community’s story continued.
“That’s because, according to Alito, while the Due Process Clause might guarantee some rights that aren’t mentioned explicitly in [the] Constitution, such rights have to be ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abortion does not fall within this category,’ he said.”
Alito went on to say that Roe was “egregiously wrong” from the begin and its reasoning is “exceptionally weak,” CNN reported.
His conclusion was that the challenge have to be determined by the states, not the Supreme Court. “That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand,” he wrote. “Our Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated,” he added.
Paul Stark, writing for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (mccl.org) on Jan 20, 2017, supplied three the reason why Roe was an improper ruling.
“First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. ‘Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote,’ explains a leading embryology textbook. ‘This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’”
“The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the ‘right of privacy’ found in the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is ‘broad enough to encompass’ a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that’s true.”
“Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.”
A National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) factsheet estimates that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, “18 states would protect unborn children immediately.” This is because of legal guidelines applied previous to the Roe ruling, or “trigger” legal guidelines that might go into impact upon Roe’s reversal, or each.
The NRLC additionally estimates that motion to “allow abortion either through legislatively-enacted statute or a court ruling interpreting the state constitution to convey the right to abortion” would happen in 23 states.
The leaked doc predictably has liberals and conservatives blaming one another. PBS on-line mentioned, “Republican members of Congress are suggesting a sinister left-wing plot to derail the outcome of the final decision. Liberals are alleging machinations from the right to lock the justices into their preliminary vote.”
Regardless of who leaked the opinion and why, that is a significant issue for the court docket, which has been proof against such scurrilous conduct, to this point.
Chief Justice John Roberts referred to as the act “absolutely appalling.” Appearing at the eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta, Roberts mentioned he hoped “one bad apple” wouldn’t have an effect on “people’s perception” of the court docket, including that “the person” or “people” who leaked the doc are “foolish” in the event that they suppose it is going to have an effect on the courts work.
Put abortion in the arms of the states, and punish the leaker accordingly.
James H. “Smokey” Shott, a resident of Bluefield, Va., is a Daily Telegraph columnist. Contact him at [email protected]