Roe v. Wade

Roe v WadeLike my last couple of posts, this is not a boxing match, at least not a traditional one. This is about if we, as a nation, have the right to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body. Roe v. Wade is a 1973 Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of abortion. The left, Democrats, say it is a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body while the right, Republicans, say that aborting a fetus is murder. The dilemma is no easy one. Both point of views are captivating and have some merit. Personally, for me, what a woman does with her body is no one’s business but her own. If she chooses to have surgery done than it’s her decision and she has to live with the consequences of that decision. I could never ask a woman to abort a fetus, especially after becoming a father, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. The funny thing to me is, if you have an abortion, you are most likely a liberal or a moderate because conservatives are against abortions. So why do conservatives care so much? Why does it bother them so much that a liberal is aborting a fetus that will most likely vote against their policies? It’s a really odd situation. Politics is so polarizing that people literally hate each other over it, shoot each over it, set themselves on fire over it, why is it that they feel that this particular issue is something that they must triumph over. I think it’s a cause that they lost in court and maybe they are sore losers because honestly, they hold rallies on how much they dislike the left, they insult them from the moment they are born to the day they die. Politicians want to jail other politicians from the opposite side of the aisle for any inconvenience and you are telling me that they really care that their political opponents choose to have an abortion? The logic is not there for me, I would think they would be ecstatic. The hate, as you can see in every news outlet, in every talk show, in every newspaper, is real. These people honestly hate each other. There are no kind words, no good jobs, no well done, there is only she wore a a jacket that said something or this person has a low IQ or attack your political opponent when they go eat. This is ridiculous. Who would want to raise a child in this environment? Politics has become so nasty that the new policy for both sides is do the opposite of what the other side is doing. I mean, come on, are you telling me that there isn’t a policy that both sides agree on? It seems that all votes these days are along party lines and that’s disconcerting. Can we agree on anything? We should at least agree that choice is the most important thing, it’s what separates from all the other animals, not that all our choices are good ones. When you start removing people’s right to choose, that’s from abortion to guns to where I can hang my hat, then you might as well let Kim Jong Un run our country.

For those that aren’t familiar with the case of Roe v Wade, like me when I started to write this article, it’s a very interesting read. Roe, who’s real name was Norma McCorvey, was trying to have an abortion of her third child. She was 21, single and had prior legal problems. Wade refers to Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade. In Texas, at that time, abortions of any kind were illegal except in cases of medical emergencies and possibly rape or incest. The case was heard by Federal District Court which found that the restricting abortions was illegal. The case was then appealed and it made it’s way to the Supreme Court. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court stated that the rights to abortion had to be weighed with the State’s right to protect its citizens. This gave way to the ruling stating that an abortion of a non viable fetus, a fetus that could not live outside the womb on its own, was the decision of the woman and trying to regulate or make a law otherwise violated some very good laws, including privacy laws. This ruling seems to be just in its face meaning that it doesn’t go to far and it doesn’t take away from individual rights. There are a lot of people that say this ruling was wrong because it has nothing to do with constitutional rights but I disagree. If you can tell woman that she can’t have an abortion, and you agree with that statement, then you should be able to tell a woman that she can’t get pregnant. They should then make it where you have to apply for a license just to get pregnant and have the government decide if you will be a fit parent. I feel that this case is not only constitutional but it is an exemplary illustration of a really good decision. To say that States can regulate your choices but the United States can’t regulate the States is absurd. In other words, if a State can make a law, then the United States can determine if that law is constitutional. There are no independent State laws and no state is immune from the United States. While conservatives attack Roe v Wade under the pretense that it allows abortions of late term pregnancies, that case is actually Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). So when you see people yelling at women going into an abortion clinic and yelling that their baby is old enough to survive outside the womb, then you are actually complaining about Planned Parenthood.

Just to note, in PP v Casey, 6 of the Justices were Republican nominees and one of the Democratic nominees had previously voted against Roe originally. In hearing this case, they had a chance to overturn Roe but didn’t because ultimately, when you are a spectator, you have the luxury of saying their wrong but when you are the one making the decision, you have to think about the decision and you can see what voting against Roe would lead to. This is why I think, can’t be absolutely certain, that it doesn’t really matter what Justice gets the nomination, at least in terms of overturning Roe.

An additional note, if you are a politician that asked a girlfriend to have an abortion so your wife wouldn’t find out or have had a wife have an abortion and no qualms with doing it then, voting against Roe makes you a hypocrite that only desires power and you shouldn’t be in office because you are only there for yourself, not the people. I’m talking to you former Idaho congressman.