The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - My Take

(Note.  In the second post of May 15, I wrote "My Take," following the leak of the preliminary draft in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  This is "My Take" following the final decision overturning Roe.)

As one might expect, the left went overboard in the reactions to the decision.  Quite a few on the mainstream stations referred to the decision as "fascist."  Mika Brzezinski, on MSNBC, also said the decision was "anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-contraception...and anti-freedom."  Conservatives are used to the name-calling.  We understand that demagoguery is the favored debating technique of the Left.  Although, that is at least a little nicer than "fuck you Supreme Court," as some celebrities spouted.    

So let's be clear.  The decision in Dobbs did not make abortion illegal.  It did say there was no federal constitutional right to an abortion.  It returned the issue to the states, where, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought the debate should be.  (See the 6/26/22 post regarding commentary in The New York Times.)  And no, 5 white men did not make the decision in Dobbs.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined in that decision, as did Justice Thomas.  But 7 white men did make the decision in Roe.  Back then it was okay for white men to decide these things.   

Here was this past Sunday's editorial in the Los Angeles Times:  "It's a dark time in America as this once-revered institution has taken the rare and awful path of depriving people of their rights."  Nope, not what the Court did.  What the Court did do was say that Roe was decided on, at best, very shaky constitutional grounds, that the Court should not have gotten involved with abortion in the first place,  returning the issue to the voters and their elected state representatives.  

Here was Representative Maxine Waters:  "The hell with the Supreme Court.  We will defy them."  Defy the Supreme Court of the United States?  I thought it was only Republicans who disrespected our democracy.  Lest you tell me she is a little wacky, let's not forget Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  Nor should we forget that an armed man who threatened to assassinate Kavanaugh was arrested near the Justice's home.  

Of course, when the Left does not get their way, it is time to change the rules of the game.  Pack the Court.  Term limits for the Justices.  Eliminate the filibuster in order to accomplish those goals.  President Biden called the decision in Dobbs an "outlier" in the developed world.  Nope.  Ireland and Germany ban most abortions after 12 weeks.  In Italy it's after 90 days.  In France, Austria and Spain, abortion is banned after 14 weeks.  In the Czech Republic it's 20 weeks, and in the UK it's 24 weeks.  And there are exceptions for various reasons.

But, contrary to the desire of some, it is not unrestricted access up to and including the due date.  Yet, there are states with no restrictions - Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Vermont, New Jersey and Washington, D.C.  And possibly New Hampshire.  Just today I heard from someone who favors abortion through the due date.  So let me be clear, such late term abortions (absent a need to protect the life of the mother) are murder.  It is infanticide.  I do not understand how anyone can justify that.  

I remain opposed, as well, to an all-out ban of abortion.  My position in the Dobbs case remains unchanged from May 15.  The Mississippi statute in question banned abortions after 15 weeks.  That is what the Court should have addressed.  And notice how 15 weeks is a longer period than is allowed in quite a few European countries, where the people decided.

As Gerard Baker wrote in the 6/28/22 Wall Street Journal:  "Progressives should now know what conservatives have known for a long time: that the burden is on them to convince voters to support ethically sound solutions that can balance the competing interests of women, the unborn and the soul of society itself."  But, Democrats have for some time looked to the courts to accomplish their policy goals.  The democratic process?  Not so much.

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - A Brief Look At Commentary In The Los Angeles Times

(Note.  While the L.A. Times did not have their own editorial in yesterday's paper, it can be fairly stated that they allowed an Op-Ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, to act as the paper's editorial.)  

Dean Chemerinsky:  "Roe vs. Wade was overruled not because of anything about its reasoning or any method of judicial interpretation but because Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 and was able to appoint three justices to fulfill his promise to...end abortion rights."  This is not the first time that I have been disappointed by Dean Chemerinsky.  (See the post on Kyle Rittenhouse.)  A look at the prior post reveals there were, in fact, criticisms of the Roe Court's reasoning and judicial interpretation - even by those on the Left.

Dean Chemerinsky complained that in Dobbs the Court wanted to leave the decision making on abortion to the political process, yet had no hesitation in declaring a New York State law passed in 1911 as being unconstitutional, and not deferring to the political process in that case.  (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, in which the Court held that the Second Amendment provided for a right to keep and bear arms.)  Is the Dean kidding?  There is an express constitutional provision - the Second Amendment - discussing guns.  Where is the express constitutional provision discussing abortion?  I expect better, especially from the Dean of one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. 

A look at the letters to the editor.  "A fetus now has greater rights than any woman or girl of reproductive age."  I wonder if the writer acknowledges any point in the pregnancy when the fetus/baby gains any rights.  And this letter:  "The U.S. is now officially a third-world country with a draconian Supreme Court."  I have actually felt that I live in a third-world country just by watching the news and driving around the city, and seeing people living on the streets everywhere.  And I do mean everywhere.  

And this letter:  "With most abortions now achieved through medication rather than a procedure, I bid you good luck trying to stop them.  You're going to need it."  That fact is supported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. 

In an article inside the paper, the Times asserts that Republicans will push federal legislation to ban abortions nationwide.  And, they state that bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to do just that.  Although, they point out that the Senate bill has only 19 supporters, and the House bill has only 164 - both far short of the number for passage.  Meanwhile, some Democrats want the Congress to pass a federal law, while the Democrats still have the majority, permitting abortion  throughout the country.  I believe they are both wrong.

The general police power resides with the states.  That is why state governors, and not the President, decided when and if to have lockdowns due to Covid.  Under what provision in the Constitution or federal law, does Congress have the power to make a federal law on abortion?  And how disappointing would it be to see Republicans arguing for that power, when a conservative Court just said the opposite.  And I understand that many Democrats do not believe that the federal government should have any limitations on its powers.  Apparently Senator Schumer was unable to get all 50 Democratic Senators to support his bill, which Senator John Cornyn asserts would allow for abortion up to the due date, at least in certain instances.  And Senator Manchin said the proposal does not codify Roe, but seeks to expand it.    

In another article inside the paper, they quote President Biden fighting back against a threat by some red states to make it illegal for women to leave that state and go to another state in order to get an abortion.  If any state makes it illegal to travel from their no abortion state to a pro abortion state, that is outrageous.  I have long believed that there is an understood right to travel between the states, which can be supported by at least a couple of constitutional provisions.  Besides, we live in the USA, not the USSR.  We believe in liberty - not using the threat of law to keep people locked in place.  I cannot imagine a more anti-conservative position than trying to ban freedom of travel. 

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - A Brief Look At Commentary In The New York Times

(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."