(Note. I recently wrote three posts on the expected decision in Dobbs - two on May 15 and one on May 22. The second on on May 15 gave "My Take" on what appeared would be the decision to overturn Roe, which the Court has now done in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion has been an emotional issue for those on both sides of the argument. Before getting to "My Take" yet again, I want to address some of the reactions we've seen to the decision.)
Let's start with yesterday's editorial in the New York Times. In the second sentence, the Times tells us that the decision "eliminated an established constitutional right involving the most fundamental of human concerns: the dignity and autonomy to decide what happens to your body." I am curious if the Times had the same concerns about the right to control what happens to your body with regards to the Covid vaccines. I opposed people losing their jobs, especially first responders, when government dictated to get the vaccine or be fired. (Full disclosure. I got two Pfizer vaccines, a Pfizer booster, and recently a Moderna booster.)
The Times criticizes the majority's reasoning in Dobbs, which claimed abortion is not "deeply rooted" in our country's history and tradition. But then the paper complains that the Constitution "was written by a small band of wealthy white men," with many owning slaves and most considering women to be second-class citizens. Just obnoxious. When Roe was decided - by seven white men - did the Times complain about the Constitution then? Were they fretting over seven white men making that decision?The Left's focus on identity politics is non-stop. Never mind that this document, this Constitution, written by wealthy white men, is the greatest governing document ever written. But if the Times wishes to move their operations to a country governed by, say, Sharia Law, all the best.
As readers know, I also like to look at the letters to the editor. One letter writer called Roe a "super precedent" (I do not know what that means legally), and called the decision "unconscionable," and issued by an "illegitimate court." I am sad to say that this letter was written by a retired New York City judge.
Here is another letter: "Years ago, whether I agreed with the court's decisions or not, I respected it and saw its decisions as sacrosanct. But my disappoint in the current court is complete...this Supreme Court has become an arm of the G.O.P." I wonder if the writer agreed with the Court's decisions when it was dominated by liberals. I wonder if the writer has moved far left, as has much of the Democratic Party, and therefore feels differently in her worldview about many issues, especially her view of Republicans.
And this letter: "Let's stop the battle of when life begins and move it to when does responsibility begin? If responsibility begins at the point of conception for the males involved in every pregnancy, let's see how quickly women's health decisions are decriminalized and abortion rights laws remain." I do not know what effect the writer's point would have on abortion laws. I do know that I completely with her with regards to the responsibility of the male/father.
In an article inside the paper, the Times quoted one Justice saying "The court bit off more than it could chew." That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussing the decision in Roe vs. Wade. She felt that the Roe Court should have simply addressed the very restrictive Texas statute at issue in Roe. (Which was my opinion as to what the Dobbs Court should have done - address the Mississippi statute in question.) Ginsburg was obviously in favor of allowing abortion. But she also said this: "The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question...the law was in a state of flux." By shutting down the debate on abortion taking place in the states, the Court created a backlash.
Ginsburg: "The Supreme Court's decision was a perfect rallying point for people who disagreed with the notion that it should be a woman's choice...they could, instead of fighting in the trenches legislature by legislature, go after this decision by unelected judges." Even some in liberal academia criticized the Court in Roe. One Yale law school professor and constitutional scholar, John Hart Ely, is quoted by the Times as follows: "It (the decision in Roe) is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The Times says that Professor "Ely wrote that the Roe decision was untenable as a matter of intellectually honest jurisprudence."
No comments:
Post a Comment