Q. Why does it appear that so many Americans don’t understand the ramifications of forced government involvement in their personal lives?
By Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq.
In the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court “majority” – it is hard to envision a more dystopian view of women and their reproductive life, as represented by the majority, but for one woman – a former religious “cult” member who “claims” to have profound moralistic views on the sanctity of unborn life. Yet, those “moralistic views” do not appear to transfer to stopping assault weapons flooding the streets of America – making their way into schools and killing living, breathing, children and their teachers. So why is that okay?
Nevertheless, overturning a 50 year-old precedent has more implications than what anti-abortion activists and “pro-lifers” would ever contemplate. A plethora of liberties and rights imbued upon “all” people flow from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection & Due Process Clauses that include the ability to use contraception between married heterosexual couples without state intervention, to “decriminalizing” intimate relations among gay couples in the privacy of their homes.
As so articulately pointed out in the dissent of Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – taking away a right – a woman’s right to “choose” – a right that has been in existence for half a century, repeatedly scrutinized, and applied by courts across the land, used as pillars for other cases where liberty and privacy rights are asserted, may now topple since under-girding principles have been taken away. And this is not about religion, or the sanctity of life – this is about setting precedent going forward, as well as destroying foundations of well-reasoned cases from the past.
As many past Justices have stated, precedent should not fall at the whim of any majority – just because they got the chance to do so. That is not how good rulings are made – that is a way prejudice and bias seeps in. In fact, as Roe is relegated to the dustbin of history, Justice Clarence Thomas has put numerous other rights on the chopping block from contraception to gay rights. But what about liberties that “he” specifically enjoys – interracial marriage afforded him by the US Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia – outlawing the “crime” of interracial marriage that was plenary at the time the Constitution was ratified? It would seem logical, if the majority is setting the benchmark of what is righteous going back to the founding documents, and the mindset of the drafters, shouldn’t everything be on the table? The good with the bad? “Surprisingly,” Justice Thomas, the only black-male sitting Justice on the Court, and presently in an interracial marriage, does not appear “interested” in revisiting the case of Loving, overturning the criminality of interracial marriage. Not surprisingly, that case was never mentioned by the “Justice.” Or do we just get to pick and choose to “revisit” the cases that don’t affect us personally?
So what about Korematsu, the Japanese-American internment camp case decided in 1944 during WWII – that case was never specifically overruled – should that case get revisited? It has withstood the test of time for 78 years, far longer than the 50 years Roe has been on the books. Roe was decided in 1973, almost thirty years after the US Supreme Court ruling ripped all Japanese Americans away from their homes and livelihoods, all because they “looked” like the enemy. If we are “doing a re-do” for the sake of morality, why was that case not mentioned?
And what about the cases where Americans were sterilized without their consent, including the infamous 1927 case of Buck v Bell, where a young Virginia woman was raped, and forcibly sterilized because she was deemed by state actors as an “imbecile” unworthy of procreation, when she was nothing of the sort? Does anyone alive remember the egregious nature of cases like this at home or abroad? The jurists who heard these cases, including the notable US Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendall Holmes – not only did he help spawn the eugenics movement of America – he embraced and encouraged it. This movement was later adopted by Nazi’s leading up to and including World War II in the 1940’s. This state-sponsored philosophy of “government knows best” – picking and choosing those it deems “unworthy” of procreation, mostly immigrants, non-whites and the poor – tacitly vilified throughout history, by society and even the US Supreme Court. Many Americans are unaware, that forced sterilization of Mexican immigrants occurred as recently as the Trump administration.
The moral here is this: once a state or federal government has control over the reproductive rights of its citizens or those within its borders – bad things happen. Whether it’s dictating to women that they must carry a child to term, or preventing life as in forced sterilization – it seems inimical, shouldn’t that determination really be up to the person – the woman, whose life is most affected? It would seem to be the most commonsense approach, but then again, the government believes it knows best and has the force and the might to sanction it.
Despite all the ramifications of rolling back precedent – disturbing the sanctity of stare decisis (meaning precedent set of cases already decided), many ultra-conservative Americans are heralding the overturning of Roe v Wade as a victory. But what one deems as a victory today, could be a disaster tomorrow – if it affects you, your family, or someone you love… The old adage reminds us, “Be careful what you wish for…” as not everything is not always, or as simple as it appears to be. As the US Supreme Court does an about-face turning back the clock on women to a time when women could not vote, married women could not hold title to property, and had no legal significance apart from their husbands, seen as only mere appendages of them – these former realities are having new life breathed into them. As the new majority of the Court so easily casts aside precedent they believe will never affect them – or their loved ones, until it does.
Adversity always brings understanding. When a loved ones is assaulted, impregnated against their will, or becomes sick or incapacitated by a pregnancy that can only end in death of the mother or the unborn child – or a child that will be born that will only know intractable suffering due to a hideous and unrelenting birth defect or disease – How will those who advocated against the rights of the woman who wanted “choice,” feel once they are forced to bear that suffering, or forced to impose it upon their loved one? There is always a scenario that can strike anyone, anywhere, of any religious or political affiliation or economic status. One must always be “cognizant” of the ramifications of what you wish for – as it may be someone else’s rights that are affected now, but it may very well be your rights or those of your loved ones affected in the future – and then, it will be too late for everyone.
For more information on the author, visit: The Legal Edition – Legal, Business & Policy News and Subscribe here on Substack!
Roe v Wade in Jeopardy? The Slippery Slope of Abortion Rights-Where Will America Go From Here… Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq May 12
Litigating Ivermectin for Treatment of COVID-19 – What the FDA, CDC & Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You…
