In addition to the argument that the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, the trouble with the supposedly genuine, albeit leaked, Supreme Court opinion on Roe v. Wade is that there is undue faith-based influence in play here.
Abortion has always stirred strong feelings in all directions. Roe reflected a more rational– secular– take on this being about the right of a woman to have control over her own body. Apart from this, I cannot think of any good coming from a decision based on an Old Testament biblical reference, even “Thou shalt not kill.” Or “You shall not kill,” for anyone who has dared move on from the language of the early 17th century. Life is more complicated than adherence to an ancient edict from a questionably authoritative source.
How in anyone’s right mind can it be proper to force a woman to give birth in any circumstance, including, apparently, incest or rape or when the health of mother or child is in question? There seems to be this undying issue of concern over consequences and accountability, or lack thereof. Making sure, somehow, that a woman pays.
What is the real issue for anti-abortion activists?
Do they feel the need to be the Morals Police? Is it really about right to life, or is it more about the need, ironically, to play God, to be another person’s judge, jury and executioner, another person’s conscience (because, you know, anyone who is considering an abortion is obviously a heathen who cannot be trusted with such a significant decision)?
Conservative Christianity to the rescue! Always wearing their undying love for God on their sleeves, but hardly ever trusting her.
And kudos to the Supreme Court, if indeed Roe is struck down or dramatically weakened. They can deliver their edict from on high and then wash their hands of it, by passing it off on the states to deal with.
The Burger court (9 men!) got it right in 1973. The Roberts court may bring us a big step closer to A Handmaid’s Tale.