Peter Friedman writes “a reversal of Roe v. Wade would place the decision where it belongs – in the political jurisdiction of each state legislature, where it would likely remain legal.” As long as this is a hot topic for middle-aged white men, let me join in and demonstrate how ridiculous his argument is.
Mr. Friedman forgets why the Supreme Court had to rule on Roe v. Wade in the first place. Texas law had made it illegal for a woman to attempt to obtain, or for a physician to even consult on, an abortion – regardless of the circumstances. With states like Texas usurping intimate decisions and intruding into medical decisions historically left to patients and physicians, the Supreme Court was forced to rule on the basis of invasion of privacy. But it also considered prevailing views and abortion’s historical legality in ancient and Anglo-Saxon law.
The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that American laws against abortion originated late in the 19th century. Prior to this, abortion laws were based on English Common Law, which permitted abortion before “quickening” of the fetus. In the 1830s, Connecticut and New York were the first to write Common Law into legislation. It wasn’t until much later that “activist judges” of Friedman’s stripe started changing the laws and made abortion illegal.
In defending “choice,” the Supreme Court defended the decision that a “woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.”
The Court also wrote that “some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.” In so ruling, for the past 32 years there have been reasonable limits on abortion, respectful of controversy and morals, but the Roe v. Wade decision stands primarily as a defense of the rights of individuals to decide intimate matters themselves.
As Roe v. Wade itself shows, states will often violate civil liberties if Constitutional rights are not pressed. As we have seen in the case of states’ support for segregation and recent anti-gay statutes, states are all too often ready to deny rights to the citizens they should be protecting.
Friedman spends half of his column whining about how his graphic description of partial-birth abortion was edited by The Standard-Times. Such abortions are hardly the norm, and the shock value of depictions of them is a totally separate matter from matters of civil and personal rights. He maintains that support for legalized abortion dropped to 43 percent in 2000.
But the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University reported a large majority of Americans in 2000, while hardly in favor of reckless use of abortion, nevertheless supported the right of a woman and her physician to choose it. Lydia Saad of the Gallup Poll confirmed similar results for 2000 and 2004 polls. But if Friedman really does believe his own figures, then he can’t also claim that abortion “would likely remain legal” if it has this much opposition.
States should be free to legislate and govern as they please, but never free to deny civil rights or privacy to citizens. Thank God for our federal Constitution.
This was published in the Standard Times on January 24, 2005
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-05/01-24-05/zzzoplet.htm
(link may be broken)
Comments are closed.