People in high places are all for “the rule of law” when such adherence suits their agendas or their biases.
But all laws aren’t fair or just. Or bad. They’re created by people so a semblance of order and decorum is maintained. They are contextual. They reflect bias and ignorance, thorough or shoddy research, knowledge at hand, political and societal climate. Very few are above amendment or repeal, or at least constant scrutiny and interpretation.
The latest concern or opportunity, depending on one’s political bent and in light of Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement, is that the new Supreme Court justice is going to be anti- Roe v Wade. Feelings may not be assuaged by the appearance of a judicial body made up largely of men making decisions that affect women’s bodies and lives. That’s not a good look.
Then again, when Roe v Wade was originally upheld, there were no women on the bench. What has changed, or is likely to change, is the philosophical/religious leanings of the justices. Conservative Christian values come into play. Views on and understandings of the sanctity of life come into play.
And just how free are we, as individuals, to make decisions concerning our own bodies? One could argue that this is a very important consideration. Is abortion always the wrong choice? Is it somehow an assault on the common good, some sort of black mark on humanity? Or do the consequences under which this baby was conceived matter? Does the health of the mother matter?
Is it beyond the scope of a judicial body to legislate morality? Do we, in a sense, let the chips fall where they may, leave the decision to the woman?
After all, it is her body, not anyone else’s. In most cases, she is the one who, ultimately, will weigh outcomes and consequences.