OPINION | Roe v. Wade’s long overdue (apparent) repeal and its worrying response from abortion advocates
James McNellis/Wikimedia Commons
Last week, Politico sent shockwaves through the political world as it revealed a leaked Supreme Court draft majority opinion for the pending Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization case which shows the court’s intention to repeal the landmark Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions.
Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee to the Court, wrote in the draft opinion, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” He goes on to add he believes the issue of abortion should be decided at the state level.
As a lifelong pro-life advocate, I could not agree with Justice Alito more and I am extremely glad to see the possibility that one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history may soon be eradicated. If finalized, it would be the pro-life movement’s largest victory yet and save countless unborn lives.
The issue of the legality of abortion should have never been decided by the Judicial Branch. The court crafted a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade by arguing that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment granted a right to privacy, which therefore grants women the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
This is an extremely flimsy constitutional justification, as the 14th Amendment makes no reference to anything remotely related to abortion and the perceived right to privacy does nothing to address the moral concerns of this issue.
Due to a lack of foundation in the constitution, the only way pro-choice advocates can claim abortion is a “constitutional right” is if Roe v. Wade is upheld. This is why social progressives and pro-choice advocates are taking unprecedented steps to defend it.
As I write this, it is currently unknown who leaked this draft. It is likely that whoever leaked it, whether it be a law clerk or even one of the justices themselves, did so in an attempt to generate public backlash that would pressure the court into changing their minds.
Needless to say, the attempt to generate backlash has been successful. We even saw a demonstration on our own campus just a couple of days ago.
Regardless of who leaked it and how Politico obtained the story, it was extremely unprofessional to have run the story. It breaks the long-standing tradition of secrecy surrounding the proceedings of the Supreme Court. The backlash that the draft opinion has generated has made an impartial ruling more impossible than it already was.
In part because of decisions such as Roe v. Wade, the Court has been politicized for a very long time. This action, however, increases the partisanship of the Court substantially. Even more worrying, the leak has emboldened certain pro-choice advocates to take more extreme measures.
Hundreds of abortion advocates held demonstrations in front of both Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Robert’s homes this past Saturday. Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-life group, had their office burned and vandalized with the phrase “if abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.” A “mostly peaceful” protest vandalized several buildings during a Portland protest the day after the news broke.
Most worrying of all, Catholic churches around the country have been subject to vandalization. Sacred Heart of Mary Church in Colorado has been vandalized twice. The pro-choice group Ruth Sent Us encouraged a nationwide protest of Catholic Churches on Mother’s Day, accompanied by video footage of them interrupting a Holy Mass.
It is clear these extremists are attempting to use mob violence to intimidate the Court’s conservative majority. Harassing people at their homes, burning buildings and interrupting church services are not civil forms of protest.
These actions should be condemned loudly by all sides of the political aisle, which has so far not been the case. The Biden administration, while condemning the vandalism of churches, has not been very vocal in its condemnation of the protests outside of Supreme Court Justice’s homes or the interruption of Masses.
Of course, these actions are not representative of the majority of pro-choice advocates and I am in no way trying to imply that they are, but the fact that these events are happening is extremely worrying. I fear an increase in violence if the Court finalizes this decision.
I pray the Supreme Court does not succumb to the cowardly tactics of a few extremists and makes the correct decision to protect the lives of the unborn.
Your donation will support The Lion's Roar student journalists at Southeastern Louisiana University.
In addition, your contribution will allow us to cover our annual website hosting costs.
No gift is too small.
Dylan Meche is a Political Science major from Baton Rouge and serves as Opinions Editor. He has been a reporter for The Lion's Roar since August of 2019....
Dalyn Wilson • May 10, 2022 at 5:15 pm
To Dylan Meche, Opinions Editor:
I take issue with the fact that you chose to publish your Roe v. Wade article at the end of the semester, when many of us who would ordinarily retaliate against it are too busy with finals and seminar papers to take the time to check you. I myself am one such, so I will make my statements brief and to the point:
You write about the way that the SCOTUS leak will cause the justices’ decision to be influenced by public backlash, but the responsibility of our supposedly-democratic government is to make decisions based on the will of the people, so if they make a statement that causes a negative public reaction, that action is clearly not in accordance with the will of the people, and therefore said decision/policy should not be made/put into place.
I also find it odd that you thought it would be appropriate to publish an opinion article on abortion rights, given that your personal privacy and bodily autonomy will never be affected by them. As a male—and a white male, at that—you have more freedom and bodily autonomy than anyone else in this country, and it is repulsive that you would use that freedom to work against the freedom of others.
Finally, there is no science to speak of that can prove the existence of a soul, or to specify the exact point at which “life” begins, by which I mean the point at which termination of a being’s existence would be considered “murder” and should therefore be condemned. Catholics and other Christians like you may believe that life begins at conception, but that is your belief. It is not mine, and it is certainly not the belief of many women in this country, which was founded on principles of religious freedom and which is supposed to operate with a separation between church and state. Since science cannot answer the question and the debate comes down to personal—often religious—belief, the issue should not be up to the state/government to decide, but rather to the individual woman. If abortion is legal at the federal level, those women who would like to have an abortion can choose to have one, and those who feel that it is immoral or unjust can choose to carry their pregnancies to term. The key element here is that each woman acts according to her own beliefs and operates with her own personal freedom to make decisions that will impact her life.
I hope that the Supreme Court realizes their folly and makes a decision that reflects the will of their people and protects the rights and privacy of women.
Sincerely,
Dalyn Regina Wilson
Danny Bolef • May 13, 2022 at 9:32 pm
“Catholics and other Christians like you may believe that life begins at conception, but that is your belief. It is not mine, and it is certainly not the belief of many women in this country…”
This is a pretty slippery argument. If women around the country have a difference of opinion, could women in this country decide life doesn’t start until 5 years old? This is arbitrary reasoning, and we don’t leave issues like this up to personal opinion. It would be entirely fair to legislate humanity beginning at conception without needing to involve religion. You can simply biology and realize that unborn babies have a completely unique human genome from that of the mother (from the moment of conception!)
Brennan Forrest • May 10, 2022 at 2:06 pm
This is one of the most ridiculous and sickening articles published in the Lion’s Roar. You can be pro-life without completely whitewashing the very real acts of terrorism inflicted by evangelical Christians on abortion providers across the world. Just in the US, there have been 7 targeted assassinations of doctors that provide D&C care at their clinics, as well as almost 50 instances of arson, bombings, and vandalism since 1983. The Supreme Court has routinely strengthened the right of pro-life protestors to harass patients seeking medical care at abortion providers, but the pearl clutching starts as soon as pro-choice advocates return in kind without even coming close to escalating past what Christian evangelicals have already done hundreds of times throughout the world. Ridiculous and shameful whitewashing of our country’s very real history of violence towards both abortion providers and women seeking abortions, but I am unsurprised that a white Christian guy would have crappy takes on women’s rights.
What’s more, Samuel Alito, in his opinion overturning Roe, quotes Matthew Hale, a guy who died almost 100 years before the foundation of the United States, and thought it was a man’s right to rape his wife. I always find it interesting the kind of people pro-lifers end up rubbing shoulders with! And you would too, if you did any research at all. Shameful, vapid drivel from an untalented and spiteful author.
Danny Bolef • May 11, 2022 at 12:18 pm
So someone doesn’t have a say on a matter unless they’re also a member of a certain group? Like a man can’t have a stance on a woman’s issue simply because he’s a man?
I’m only posturing here, but I imagine you wouldn’t be saying the same thing if the author agreed with your opinion instead of disagreed.
Sexism isn’t progressive.
Danny Bolef • May 13, 2022 at 9:33 pm
Reading this back, it was unfair of me to posture and assume how you would feel one way or the other.
Regardless, it would be unfair to discount someone’s opinion based on a characteristic. That is all I meant to say without the unnecessary assumption.
Rose • May 10, 2022 at 1:56 pm
People cannot be forced to give life saving care and they cannot be forced to give access to their bodies. If I am the only person in the world who can give the right blood or kidney to someone to save their life, I cannot be forced to do so. It is no different for a pregnancy.
Danny Bolef • May 11, 2022 at 12:26 pm
I feel as if you’re referencing the Violinist’s Argument here, but I could be wrong.
Either way, there is a distinct difference between “killing” and “letting die.” If someone has been attached to you against your will, of course you have a write to cut them off your bodily resources. But when you cut someone off of your resources, you essentially are letting them die.
That is not the same as crushing their skull, siphoning their blood and brain-matter, or poisoning them so that you cause them to die.
Abortion is typically performed in a manner where the child is actively killed.
The only way for abortion NOT to be murder is if the child is not a human life. But clearly it is a human life, as it possesses an entirely unique human genome from that of the mother or father. It also has the chance to survive when given the time and care provided by the mother’s body.
A baby is not something that just gets attached to you. It’s another human life.
Lindsey • May 11, 2022 at 1:55 pm
There are also tumors with human genomes that grow in womens’ bodies. Are we supposed to just leave those?
Danny Bolef • May 13, 2022 at 9:19 pm
Do tumors have completely unique human genomes used to develop an entirely separate body from that of the mother? No, they’re corruptions of existing DNA, and very obviously so. We can measure the changes as they happen, and leaving a tumor connected to person will not develop a different human being.
When a child is conceived, they don’t just have a “slightly different” set of DNA. It’s an entirely unique genome as a result of the fertilization of the egg. That genome says what hair-color, eye-color they’ll have, whether they’ll have a straight-thumb or a bent pinky, a cleft chin, dimples.
Ashlynn • May 10, 2022 at 1:52 pm
What’s unprofessional is this poorly written and highly-biased article that probably wasn’t proofread or approved before it was posted.
Ashlynn • May 10, 2022 at 1:51 pm
What’s unprofessional is this poorly and highly-biased written article that probably wasn’t proofread or approved before it was posted.
Rose • May 10, 2022 at 1:57 pm
to be fair, it is an opinion piece :\
Lindsey • May 10, 2022 at 2:56 pm
It should still be properly researched and proofread at the very least.
Dan • May 10, 2022 at 4:22 pm
What was not properly researched?
Lindsey • May 10, 2022 at 5:46 pm
Several things:
1. Statements like “one of the worst Supreme Court decisions” implies a review of other Supreme Court decisions, which I assure you would turn over a veritable minefield of atrocities. To label a decision, validly based on an ammendment guaranteeing all citizens bodily autonomy the worst in light of hammer v dagenhart, buck v bell, a slew of reconstruction era decisions limiting the rights af freed slaves, dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Japenes internment camps, etc. belies either a complete lack of historical data or a certain level of privilege to feel only those things that affect you matter.
2. Stating that “the 14th amendment makes no reference to anything remotely related to abortion”
Can only lead one to assume that this author did not read the roe v wade decision and how the Supreme Court justices determined it was guaranteed by that ammendment (and, by the way, the Bible also doesn’t mention anything even remotely related to abortion either, but that’s another issue entirely). Or, the author read it and chose to specifically omit it which is perhaps even more troubling.
3. As others have pointed out, the author clearly researched illegal acts carried out by those he opposes, but completely failed to list one single illegal act carried out by pro-life activists- and there have been many.
Dan • May 10, 2022 at 9:24 am
When will these people get through there heads that ABORTION IS MURDER
Dalyn Wilson • May 10, 2022 at 5:12 pm
There is no science to date that definitively proves when life begins; it comes down to personal belief. And when it comes to personal–often religious–belief, the church and state are supposed to be separated in this country, so legislation should leave the choice of whether or not abortion is moral to the individual woman (people who do not have uteruses should not make decisions that will only affect people who do).
Danny Bolef • May 11, 2022 at 1:03 pm
“There is no science to date that definitively proves when life begins.”
If there is no definitive way to say when life begins, is it possible that abortions have been performed and have killed living human beings?
And when “life begins”, whenever that is, what is the difference between the baby a day before life began and the day of?
You’re right that everyone has their own opinion on the issue, but that is an incredibly problematic foundation for the argument that abortion should be legal.
If anything, because we don’t know when life starts, we should make it illegal as not to risk killing an human life!
Lindsey • May 11, 2022 at 1:58 pm
If anything, because we don’t know when life starts, we should place more value on the actual living, breathing human. Forced birth is a human rights violation.
Danny Bolef • May 13, 2022 at 9:43 pm
But we do know when life starts, Lindsey! How else could we determine what a “actual living, breathing” human is?