This post might not be timely any longer as the Dodds decision was rendered months ago. I've had this sitting in my tabs since then. I wanted to sit on it for a bit. Let the initial reactions sort of ebb.
Anyone who has a heartbeat knew that the Dobbs decision, either direction, was going to be an emotional event. When the draft opinion was leaked, it was very obvious that the left was going to go nuts. If fact, they did go nuts. How often do you hear about a possible assassination attempt on a Justice? And this was before the actual decision was rendered. In some corners of interwebs there were several who predicted of high levels of violence once the actual decision was official was released. This was the case initially, bit the violence and rhetoric has tapered off a bit.
After reading my fakebook fed and other sources, the concerns about how the left was going to react was not overblown. You have sitting congresscritters calling for people to defy the SCOTUS decision. Others are calling people "to fill the streets". The last time individuals in positions of influence made these same requests of their followers, several cities experienced months-long riots costing billions and nearly two dozen lives lost. I've had more than one "friend" say if anyone agrees with the Dobbs decision they will no longer be considered a friend and should unfriend. While unfriending someone certainly doesn't qualify as a form of violence it does open a window on the thought process. This has become the hill on which they are metaphorically willing to die on. And end friendships.
It is really obvious from what has been posted on my feed that most haven't even given the SCOTUS decision even a casual glance. Both opinions. Most of what I'm reading is the usual dribble that you hear coming from the perfectly coifed talking heads on CNNMSNCBCBSNPRABCNBC. Despite the fear-mongering the idiots on TV are spewing this decision does not end abortion in the USA, it only sends it back to the states where it belongs.
If you live in a state that permits a woman to terminate a baby up the date of birth, women will be allowed to continue to do just that. If you live in a state that won't allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy, there will be neighboring states that will allow it. Some pro life states have floated the idea of charging women with a crime if they have the pregnancy terminated across the border. But it seems that those ideas were quickly quashed as not being workable and possibly not even legal.
If I remember correctly the mantra back in the day was legal, safe, and rare. This is a situation where two out of three is not bad doesn't apply. Legal: certainly. And it still is legal in most jurisdictions. Safe: not for the 55 million lives ended. Rare: 55 million babies terminated since RvW is not rare. Outside the issue of when life begins (at conception in my faith-based opinion) my biggest issue is that abortion has become a method of birth control. Over the past few years, as the pro abortion crowd upped the rhetoric, several women made it clear that have had several abortions over the years. Good grief. Several? Do these women not know how babies are made? Having one abortion might be a health issue. But several? Nope.
I've seen in several sources a list of women who had abortions due to reasons other than convenience. One was a sexual assault. Another was the position of the fertilized egg. Another was the mother to be was still a child herself. There were several other examples listed where health was an issue. Decent arguments in of themselves. However, you would have a hard time convincing me that the termination of 55 million pregnancies are all a woman's health issue. I think this decision will give individual states and Congress the opportunity to define and codify how we can protect the lives of the unborn AND the lives of the women who are pregnant. This ruling does NOT ban abortion.
I somewhat get a kick out of the folks who say this ruling will eventually: move minorities to back of the bus, separate water fountains, end interracial marriage, bring back Jim Crow laws, end gay marriage, and whole slew of other laws dealing with rights. Other than gay marriage, unless there are amendments to the Constitution overturning existing amendments, this is all nothing more than scare tactics. It was explicitly stated in the opinion that "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
One more item to keep in mind about RvW. Although she would have probably voted to keep RvW, Justice Ginsburg is on record stating the RvW ruling back in 1973 was flawed. She was in the "living, breathing document" camp, so even though she thought it was flawed, she most likely would have voted in the dissent.
Something worth noting is those who up in arms over the Dobbs decision are having a difficult time explaining how this decision is bad from a legal standpoint. Lots of wailing and knashing of teeth with my body, my choice. And women are going to die in back alleys. But very little in the way of how this ruling was not good legally speaking. Even the dissenting opinion was heavy with women are gonna die, and light with legal precedence.
On one post I read has a comment that attempted to compare the recent 2nd Amendment decision with the Dodds decision. "The SCOTUS stated the states cannot set gun control, it must be federal, and now they say abortion can’t be federal, but states. Hypocrisy abounds there." It was rightly point out that the issue of gun rights is clearly defined in the Constitution, while the issue of abortion is not. To take this matter a little further, subsequent amendments to the Constitution has said that rights clearly defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights not only apply at the federal level, but also has precedence within the states. In other words, the ruling regarding conceal/carry in New York was righteous because the New York law did indeed abridge rights.
Although this isn't touch on very much by either side of the debate, but especially on the pro side, is what has happened in minority communities. I've seen some estimates that more than half of the abortions performed in the USA are on women of color. 25+ million! With many abortion centers set up in minority communities it makes me wonder if some people aren't channeling Margaret Sanger and her vile views on minorities.
One last point. Many on the pro terminate side like to point out how countries in Europe are so enlightened when it comes to abortion. What they neglect to mention is many of these countries do have limits. What the pro abortion crowd in the USA wants is unlimited up to the date of birth. This is not how Europe does it. Most are first trimester only. After that, abortion is illegal. Based on a lot of what I've seen, I think the majority of people in the USA would back some sort of bill that mirrors what European countries have done. I wouldnt.
As time has gone along after the Dobbs decision, the rending of hair has subsidied somewhat. People are realizing that no, this does not make abortion illegal. Will it make it more difficult is some locations? Sure. As it ought to be. While my beliefs compell me to be firmly against abortion, reality is that in some cases it might be necessary. God doesn't make mistakes and the women who have had, or will have, an abortion will eventually have to answer to Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment