Since the leak of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe V Wade and send abortion rights back to the states to control, there has been numerous protests by Americans who are pro-choice. While I am not a fan of people gathering outside the homes of some of the Supreme Court Justices as I would prefer that they confine their voices of protest to the workplace, in this case the Supreme Court Building, I support their right to advocate for their beliefs, and hope that those who choose to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (that would be from the First Amendment of the Constitution), focus on the word peaceably, unlike those who chose to assemble outside Congress on January 6th, but then went further, attacking the Capitol police, breaking in windows and doors, chanting various threats concerning the elected officials within, and vandalized various offices and public areas of our Capitol building.
A riot which injures over 140 police officers and damages public property in an effort to delay the peaceful transition of power, a tradition which is one of the main differences between our democracy and those countries which have weaker versions of democracy, is not even close to "peaceable assembly". So again, I cannot emphasize the importance of those who are engaged in protesting the loss of a right, the first time in our history that such a loss might occur, do so peaceably. If we (those who believe in a woman's right to choose to bear children or not) do anything less than this, if some among us choose to fall to the depths of those who attacked our Capitol and our hallowed tradition of a peaceful transition of power, then we are no better than they are, and can not pretend that we honor the rule of law.
At this point, most reporting seems to indicate that this opinion will stand. There has been some rumors that Chief Justice Roberts would prefer a less aggressive ruling, perhaps some type of compromise that maintains a woman's right to choose within the framework of a reduced time constraint, perhaps something similar to the laws of many of the European countries, maybe 15 weeks (like Mississippi's law which is the basis of this SCOTUS hearing), but that seems unlikely unless one of the 5 who have signed onto the current opinion choose to recant.
I don't think it is untrue that the viability of a fetus outside the womb has been altered over the past 50 years due to medical advances. Still, according to most medical research, babies born less than 22 weeks after conception have very little chance of survival. And, of course this number drops to virtually zero percent, once we get below 20 weeks.
Yet, the idea shouldn't be that if a fetus cannot live outside the womb, it should be eligible to be aborted. Clearly, the fetus is alive, a future human being, and we should acknowledge that, and not pretend that a future person can be destroyed for any reason. It is this callous thinking that gives fuel to those who are anti-abortion. By recognizing that the fetus, even at 15 weeks, is a life, we can find common ground with the anti-abortion advocate, then attempt to make our case that the woman is not merely a vessel carrying this life, but also a person who has rights to make decisions about their future as well.
As I said above, I believe there is a middle ground in this controversy. Not that I think that a compromise will satisfy 100% of the people; that is not possible in any difficult debate, and not something we should expect to achieve. That is why I am aghast at the possibility that more than half of the states might have abortion bans by the end of summer. But I do believe that the majority of Americans, if asked by binding referendum at the 2022 November elections, would vote to:
Alter, if you like, Roe V Wade to allow abortions for any reason up to 18 weeks, and to terminate a pregnancy as decided by the mother and her doctor, for rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother, and clear indication that the fetus is medically compromised.
Again, I know this does not satisfy everyone, but it does maintain the right of a woman to choose within reasonable constraints, while providing for the protection of a fetus from a capricious decision to cut its life short.
That being said, it would be irresponsible of me not to say two things. First, I am a man, incapable of bearing and birthing a child, so I would defer to a woman who believes my proposal needs tweaking. My goal is to present a compromise position that enables America to move past this controversy without exposing us to a restriction of other rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution, especially those rights related to privacy such as birth control and marriage.
Second, it is critical that we address the issue of lack of access to health care for far too many Americans. I mentioned in my first post concerning abortion that, while the abortion rate in America has fallen dramatically since the 1980's, there are many countries in Europe, especially the Nordic countries, that have far lower incidences of abortion. A main ingredient in that result, and remember, the foundation of preventing abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, is sex education, easy access to birth control methods, and a concerted effort to treat sex as a recreational act as opposed to a procreation act. To eliminate the deep root of puritanism that views sex as a behind-closed-doors, necessary evil to keep the flock growing, as well as a way to punish and control woman who dare to engage in pre-marital sex, despite the fact that every pregnancy requires a man to participate.
This issue, like so many of the issues of today, needs real debate, a bit of compromise from both sides, and a decision that reflects the majority of Americans, not that of one side or the other. Like all issues being debated today, we are all Americans, and should remember that, especially in light of the horror of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the atrocities occurring all over the world where democracy is under threat from autocrats and dictators. Those kind of people thrive where there is confusion and doubt concerning the institutions of a nation, doubt that they first sow, then take advantage of by providing an easy scapegoat and simple answers to complex problems.
Living in a democratic country is much harder than under a dictator because in a dictatorship there are no hard choices to make. You just do as you are told, no questions, no debates, no input. Wouldn't it be refreshing, and empowering, if America could come together, fashion a compromise concerning abortion, and move on to the next big issue. It certainly would show the world how strong is our democracy, and how better it is to live in a country that respects all opinions while fashioning laws that are acceptable to the majority even when grudgingly accepted by a minority that had some hand in the creation of those laws, those compromises.
No comments:
Post a Comment