0
0
We live in a world gone mad it seems. A world where everyone has an opinion on everything and where these opinions can find their way to change the laws that govern the rights of individuals.
Of course I am referring to the recent outcome of the US Supreme Court changing a 50 year legal precedent that gave a women the constitutional right to have an abortion. When it was leaked that the US Supreme Court was reviewing Roe vs Wade and likely to overturn it there was an uproar from the community.
Incredibly the uproar wasn’t unanimous horror towards the fact that Roe vs Wade could be overturned but instead it was divided uproar by two different opinions on abortion. One the ‘Pro-lifers’ (PLs) and the other the ‘Pro-choicers’ (PCs). The PLs believe that abortion is the killing of a baby whilst PCs believe that women have the right to make their own choice with regards to abortion.
Let’s start by first discussing the decision itself to overturn Roe vs Wade. Could the original outcome of Roe vs Wade be challenged and overturned based on a technical interpretation of the constitution? Of course it can! Afterall the constitution was written 235 years ago by a group of men to be the overarching laws that govern the US. The constitution begins with the words “We the people”, which is meant to refer to the fact that the role of the US Government is meant to be to serve its citizens.
A better question to whether Roe vs Wade could be challenged is whether it should be challenged? Given Roe vs Wade gave national rights to women to have an abortion then why should this be reviewed to take away a right given to a citizen of the US? Even if it is possible that the previous Justices interpreted the constitution incorrectly, why revisit it to take away the rights given to US citizens? Surely any change to take away rights must have a strong rationale other than it being revisited just because the current Justices felt like it? Was women having this right somehow causing harm to other citizens?
The Justices may argue that all they are ruling on is whether the original outcome of Roe vs Wade was consistent with the constitution and that it has nothing to do with abortion rights. They are simply ruling that abortion rights are not part of the constitution and hence it is up to the States to have their own laws. But this is a poor argument given it is well known that many States would immediately move to ban abortions, so changing the ruling on Roe vs Wade translates into the taking away of rights of millions of women in the US. Again the question is why?
US citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms and this causes a lot of harm to other citizens yet there doesn’t seem to be any Justices keen to revoke this right!
In any case this brings me back to the topic of the post. Should your general opinion, my general opinion or even a Justice’s “conservative” opinion have the power to take away the right for a women to make her own decision to have an abortion based on their specific circumstance?
Whilst I am free to be a PL or PC, I do not have an ability to know every individual’s specific circumstance and I certainly shouldn’t have any right to have my general opinion override an individual’s specific opinion based on their unique circumstance. That would be equivalent to forcing my opinion on someone else.
The best person to know right from wrong on abortion is the individual faced with making a decision on having an abortion. Why should my general opinion on abortion somehow be more important that the individual’s specific opinion based on their specific circumstance?
Being a guy I am very fortunate to not have to be in a position to make a decision on having an abortion but I am certain that every women faced with this decision does not make it lightly. And I am also certain that if a women makes the decision to have an abortion that they are best qualified to know if it is the right decision. Further, should they make the decision then they should have infrastructure in place to support their decision and ensure their welfare.
Isn’t that after all why we have laws and Governments in a democracy? To safeguard the rights and freedoms of individuals and ensure equality?
How does revoking a constitutional right that has existed for 50 years fit with the principles of a democracy? I fear it does not.
