A mare impregnated by a rogue stallion Is afforded more protection than a woman raped and Impregnated by her father!
By John Johnson II
The Supreme Courts overturning of Roe v. Wade after fifty years; thereby subjugating women’s reproductive rights as subordinate to states interest. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s ruling in one instance disregards language in the U.S. Constitution which states that inalienable rights, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” are endowed on every human being by his Creator and are often referred to as “natural rights.”
The second disregard of individual’s rights involves one’s rights to privacy. However, this right isn’t mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but is inferred by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as other amendments. Amendments 4, 5, and 7 allow individuals to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from local and state governments.
Justice Alito operating as an “originalists” has chosen to interpret the Constitution as the “Founding Fathers would’ve, who, as slave owners, were immoral. The original Constitution decried that “All Men Are Created Equal.” At no point were women even mentioned within the Constitution. Was this an oversight or were women subordinate to white men just as slaves weren’t considered human.
Alito cites the following suppositions to justify his reasonings for overturning Roe v. Wade:
- Abortion rights weren’t codified within the Constitution nor deeply rooted;
- There is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution;
- There’s no evidence that peoples’ reliance on the court’s abortion precedents over the past half century should matter;
- “Conceded” reliance interests were not really implicated because contraception could prevent almost all unplanned pregnancies’;
- States are entitled to regulate abortion to eliminate “gruesome and barbaric” medical procedures; to “preserve the integrity of the medical profession”; and to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability, including barring abortion in case of fetal abnormality;
- The high court decisions reaffirming Roe was “egregiously wrong,” exceptionally weak” and so “damaging” that they amounted to “an abuse of judicial authority; and
- Any state regulation of abortion is presumptively valid and “must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought “it was serving “legitimately state interest,” including “respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.
Justice Alito is an egalitarian, partisan, and right wing conservative ideolog who abused his judicial authority by postulating that he through scholarly examination of the Constitution unraveled the inherent “egregiously wrong and judicial abuses committed by the previous justices who reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. I’ve offered the following brief counter response to three of Alito’s seven suppositions:
- Abortion rights aren’t the only rights not codified within the Constitution, such as the right to travel, privacy, autonomy, and dignity. The Supreme Court defended these uncodified rights until recently excluded abortion rights. Alito uses “deeply rooted” without defining it. If the existence of Roe for nearly fifty years doesn’t constitute “deeply rooted,” what does?
- The right to privacy as enumerated in the 14th Amendment didn’t vanish just because justice Alito concluded it isn’t an inherent right.
- Alito’s language regarding women could rely on contraception’s to prevent almost all unplanned pregnancies sounds like that of a male chauvinist.
The remaining 4 thru 7 suppositions don’t merit a response because they merely assert the conservative beliefs of Republicans and Christian doctrines of Evangelicals. Is it not obvious that now that the Supreme Court has been packed with a Super majority of ( 6 ) right wing conservative justices, Alito’s assertion that Roe “must be overruled” constituted its death sentence as of June 24, 2022? Why should women shed their inalienable rights once they become pregnant? It’s not a woman’s duty to propagate society if they choose not to.
Casinos use a similar process of stacking decks of cards to ensure that gamblers lose. Republicans packed the Supreme Court to ensure that women would lose their reproductive rights.
“ A state using its “interests” to deny women’s abortions can’t shed that “ interests” upon the infant’s birth, even if the mother elects to keep that infant. That interest is codified by law; thus, requiring the state to provide the financial support needed to raise that infant.” John Johnson II
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Be the first to comment