Supreme Court faces conundrum
There have been instances throughout our history in which wrongs that were inflicted by the United States Supreme Court were overruled with the passage of time and societal enlightenment. Two prime examples are the decisions in two notorious cases: Plessy versus Ferguson, 1896 (the separate but equal doctrine), and Dred Scott versus Sandford (slaves were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court), 1857.
The court is now poised to reverse or at least significantly weaken precedent of almost a half-century: the Roe versus Wade decision. This time, change is not forthcoming because society has evolved and become more enlightened. It is because the court is controlled by a conservative majority which is not reflective of the country, a majority which seeks to impose the tyranny of the minority.
Polling has consistently shown that the American people are conflicted on the politically charged and emotional issue of abortion, but that only a small minority believes that the procedure should be banned in all cases, including those in which a pregnancy results from rape or incest or in which the life of the mother is endangered.
A repeal of the Roe versus Wade decision will not end abortion. It will make the procedure harder to secure, the burden of which will fall predominantly on poor women. In the South, where the procedure would certainly be banned, it would drive to other states those who can afford to travel and would push women without financial means to illegal and likely unsafe providers.
No one celebrates abortion; no one is “pro-abortion,” as some have been disingenuously labeled. Many are “pro-abortion rights”: a huge difference.
A conundrum arises in the face of increasingly accepting the elevation of the fetus to the legal status of the equivalence of a human being who has emerged from the womb: if the mother is to be considered to have murdered her baby, how can she be let off scot free, the abortion provider being the only one to face consequences? Should we not then begin arresting, charging with murder, convicting, and sentencing to death or life imprisonment all women, including teenage girls, who sought and secured an abortion? Would society stand for it?
The Supreme Court is held in disrepute by increasing numbers of Americans who accurately perceive it to be a political body and one which often acts so as to reverse hard-fought rights and liberties, including voting, civil, and worker rights, and the rights of women. As it moves to make abortion more difficult to secure or to pave the way for its illegality in many states, it may find that it has overplayed its hand.
Oren Spiegler is a resident of Peters Township.