Roe v. Wade in the News
So, in this most contentious debate, Americans read and listened to calm articulations of each position as elected representatives stressed the importance of listening respectfully to the views of others. Just kidding. It seems the abortion debate features two indefensible positions. Based on my reading, one group advocates ripping apart viable people in utero and the other seemingly wants to imprison teen girls who become pregnant and don’t wish to remain so. The second group can’t seem to find an appropriate judicial punishment for the man or boy who caused the pregnancy, which in and of itself is interesting.
At the outset of this column, let me state that I am not weighing in on the matter of abortion at all. Frankly, as a person without a uterus, I have no standing in the matter. We do have a serious matter concerning our government, our courts, the media environment, and the future of our society. Again, we painfully observe the same sorry state of affairs.
The whole matter began with a leaker. Got to find the leaker, say many. If the leaker is on our side of the political fence, then we all need to celebrate the heroic deed. If the leaker is on the other side of our politics, this calls for impeachment and prosecution. Tweets, podcasts, public statements, and pundits await the identity and motivation of the leaker before they are willing to condemn or justify the act of taking a portion (just a portion) of the Supreme Court’s unfinished work and making it public. See how this game is played? It can only work if the reading public and voters are all thought-free suckers.
Quotes
The stampede to the microphones following release of the not-yet completed, not-yet deliberated, not-yet voted on, not-yet-made-a-ruling of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion drew an avalanche of quotes from the far-right to the far-left. Following is a compilation of some of the quotes, with some tongue-in-cheek exaggerating thrown in to amuse readers of this column. Guess which is which if you dare.
Turning to the White House, the talking points in response to the unfinished, unpublished opinion came fast and furious. “Justice Alito’s opinion on Roe versus Wade is so egregious that it had to be strangled before it saw the light of day,” White House Spokesperson Jen Psaki said in a prepared statement. “It would not bother me one bit if people decided to storm the Supreme Court or follow the Justices home to make their voices heard.”
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts quickly confirmed that the draft, some 3 months old, is indeed a work product of SCOTUS deliberations. The Chief Justice made clear that the opinion, which would return abortion laws to the states, does not represent the current or final opinion of the court. Not current. Not final.
The unpublished opinion by one of the seven Supreme Court Justices immediately set off alarm bells with every voting bloc critical to the outcomes in the upcoming midterm elections. President Joseph R. Biden sped to the microphone to declare that rights of LGBQ+ people are at risk, while pundits brayed that Black and Hispanic voters need to return to the Democratic Party lest their existence be made illegal.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spoke, “We welcome the hyper-alarmism and distraction. Democrats are paving the way for an agenda-free midterm landslide and opening the door for more Trump nuttiness.” Swiftly pivoting to talking points, McConnell continued, “the worst thing about this damned leak is that it is keeping our campaigns from reminding voters about the release of criminals from prison, COVID responses, mental health matters and lost learning by schoolchildren off the headlines.” “At this rate, instead of talking about inflation, Republicans are going to have to come up with an agenda that includes a political position on the abortion matter. Worse, there may be a vote which leaves my party precious little room to hide.”
“Anonymous whistleblowers are central to our dwindling midterm hopes,” said Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), “It worked once. We escaped accountability, and it’s better than running on our track record”
“Representative Schiff means anonymous sources leaking unfinished documents are central to defending our democracy,” corrected Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), “this has nothing to do with the upcoming midterms, but if people want to contribute to our candidates who are we to stop them?”
The Aftermath
Legal scholars seem to agree that if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, abortion matters will be returned to the states. Already, at least 13 states have passed laws that would restrict abortions should Roe be overturned. Some of these states set standards such as presence of a heartbeat or progress of the pregnancy. Other states would return to pre-Roe laws that remain on the books. To be sure, reversal of Roe’s impact would fall most harshly on lower incomes, i.e., women without the resources to travel to another state. While likely no such conversation will ever take place, acknowledging that advancements in medical science, particularly neonatal care and imaging techniques, have changed the landscape, and that disparate impact is real, might be a good place to start. Both are true. Deal with it.
Instead of conversation, wild extrapolations repel reasoned people. The kitchen sink approach infers that vaccine mandates and rising sea levels are a certain result of Justice Alito’s draft opinion.
Given that the country is still investigating the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, why would some believe that disrupting Mother’s Day services at churches or threatening the Supreme Court building would sway others to join their cause? The Washington, D.C., police may be getting tired of putting up barriers to keep mostly peaceful protesters from burning down centers of government. What do the protesters want? Permanent fencing between our government and its citizens? Is that somehow “saving democracy?”
A BETTER WAY?
The deliberative process of the courts in general and especially the Supreme Court is central to the confidence in the justice served by the legal system. Recklessly attacking the judiciary ultimately undermines every person. The recent trend to attack the judge or jury when court deliberations do not support the conviction or acquittal by media pundits is dangerous enough.
Characterizing the Supreme Court as unelected, undemocratic, royalty when a decision doesn’t fit one’s politics condemns the country to the whims of the partisans in Congress and the Executive Branch. And we can all see how well that is working. Think – should the same court that enacted Roe be abolished now?
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is quoted as understanding that the nuance and deliberative process of the judiciary stands as a necessary barrier to the partisan divide. Indeed, Ginsburg is quoted as opining that Roe was a faulty decision in that it was the wrong case to advance abortion decisions, too far reaching, too broad and provided an avenue for anti-abortion groups to seek reversal of the decision. Justice Ginsburg’s wisdom in highlighting how other major cases settled and united the citizenry where Roe added to the divide is worth a read.
The angst caused by the release of Justice Alito’s draft opinion is real. The leaker got the result they expected. They knew that a full deliberation of the matter, the courts thorough processes, the development of a majority position (whatever it turns out to be), the crafting of minority opinions and the concurrences and dissents would not be as inflammatory as the reaction to the malicious act of stealing and publicizing one unfinished element.
This writer, and many others, await the decision from the Supreme Court.