(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Today is the 50th anniversary of Roe, which granted women the only civil right taken away by SCOTUS [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-01-22 On January 22, 1973, nine men — eight white and one Black — announced that the implied constitutional right to privacy from the government (found in the due process clause of the 14th amendment) gave American women the right to choose their reproductive outcomes without interference from the government. In plain English, it made abortion legal despite any individual state’s opinion. Roe vs Wade, a 7-2 decision, established the right to abortion up until fetal viability — then around 24 weeks. After viability, the Court ruled that a woman was still entitled to an abortion to save her life or health. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in their Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health decision. By 6 to 3, the Justices said that the 1973 Court had overreached and that women had no right to an abortion. SCOTUS left individual states to decide how misogynistic they wanted to be. And to the nation’s shame, it was the first and only time the Supreme Court negated an existing civil right. I have no legal training, so I cannot give weight to one legal argument over another. Although even to the untrained observer, it is apparent that the Constitution, like the Bible, can be interpreted to support any position an interested party has. Legal minds cannot even agree on whether the Constitution is a dead document that judges can only interpret as the founders intended it to be understood. Or if it is a living guide that adjusts to changing times. But there is more than just a divide between the originalists and the living document proponents. The traditionalists cannot agree on the original meaning of the Constitution. This conflict reflects that, as far back as 1787, even the delegates debating the new Constitution continued to argue what it said. After all, the wording is vague, and the vocabulary is imprecise. And after four un-airconditioned months during a sweltering Philadelphia summer, you have to think the delegates agreed to fudge some of the outstanding issues — thus leaving the document's meaning in the eye of the beholder. To this day, no one can say for sure what the second amendment intends. And if the Founders reanimated, I guarantee they would debate its meaning. And that is the problem with politics and religion. Neither is empirical, measurable, testable, or provable. If the Constitution is not the answer, who should decide on the abortion issue? And what should guide that decision? The Constitution (in all its imperfection) does seem to have a clear-cut answer to that. And it is not religion. The first amendment bans the government from making laws to favor one religious viewpoint. Although there are some who still maintain — despite centuries of jurisprudence — that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. And therefore, religious considerations are legitimate state government concerns. This turn to the supernatural raises the question, where do religion and the faithful stand on abortion? Their position is not unified. Some people say their religion maintains personhood begins at conception. And fetuses have the same rights as the born, ab ovo. Others claim that personhood begins at ensoulment — which is an arbitrary decision. In Islamic reckoning, it is around 120 days. But others differ. Jewish opinion depends on who you ask. In one belief, the Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born. In Israel, abortion is legal if approved by a termination committee — which almost always grants permission. And if denied, women can get abortions in private clinics, which while illegal, have never been prosecuted. Christian thinking is all over the place. Current Catholic orthodoxy states life begins at conception. But that is a relatively new position. Historically, Christian scholars have had a wide range of views. Thomas Aquinas, for example, did not believe the young fetus had a human soul. Today, some Christian denominations, notable Presbyterians, and to a more nuanced degree, Episcopalians are pro-choice. Even Christians who are pro-life debate whether their religion permits abortion in certain circumstances (rape, incest, to save the life, or to preserve the health, of the mother) - or not. Based on this variety of opinions, it is safe to say that religion does not offer a definitive guideline. So from a practical point of view, as well as the legal one, religion should be dismissed as a factor in making public abortion policy. Besides, if Catholic and other restrictive Christian authorities wanted to be biblically consistent, they would lobby to criminalize male masturbation (onanism). For starters, the Bible proscribes it. And because every one of the billions of sperm a man makes is theoretically capable of becoming life in the right circumstances. Now we must ask if religion is insufficient as a guide, what is sufficient? How about public opinion? Here the answer is clear. A majority of Americans (61%) support a woman’s right to choose in almost all cases. Even red states have shown voter support for abortion. The first time voters could weigh in on abortion as a stand-alone issue, in ruby-red Kansas, the verdict was overwhelmingly pro-choice (59%-49%). Before the vote, political pundits suggested a narrow margin for the anti-abortion side would be a moral victory for pro-choice advocates. The pro-abortion side dreamed of an unlikely win. Nobody predicted what turned out to be a landslide vote for women’s rights. However, rights should not be granted by voters — although it is gratifying when the majority opinion agrees with what is right. People who are victims of legal discrimination are usually minorities. And their civil rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. So far we have still not answered the question, who should we recognize as having the authority to make a decision on abortion? We have dismissed religion, if for no other reason than it does not provide a consistent opinion. We have dismissed politicians because, for all their protestations, the anti-abortion zealots base their thinking on religion. And we have dismissed the voters, as the majority might deny inalienable rights to a minority. So that leaves us with one candidate to decide — the pregnant woman herself. The choice should be the woman’s alone. This outcome has the benefit of celebrating the American ideal of individual freedom. In closing, a reminder — ”pro-choice" is not a synonym for “pro-abortion.” A pregnant woman, who is against abortion, is unreservedly entitled to choose to maintain her pregnancy. No one has ever suggested that abortion should be mandatory. And I hope few Americans would recommend adopting something like China’s one-child policy. Because, goddamn it, reproduction is a personal choice, not something the state should stick its nose into. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/22/2148652/-Today-is-the-50th-anniversary-of-Roe-which-granted-women-the-only-civil-right-taken-away-by-SCOTUS Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/