With a battle raging over President Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court, it is a good time to look at the court and the Roe v. Wade ruling.
So just how does the Supreme Court have the mission of reviewing laws for compliance with the United States Constitution? It does not come from the constitution itself; the court granted that power to themselves.
“Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Though the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system. Nothing on interpreting the constitutionality of laws.
We can debate if the extreme power of the court is good or bad; it is great when they rule your way and bad if you do not agree with them.
Now comes the 300-pound gorilla in the room, Roe v. Wade. Considered in 1973, it was based on the science as known way back then.
Let me say I do not feel strongly about abortion. It is a very important issue in Allegan County, greater than in any area I have lived, but it is not in my top few political issues. That statement may anger a few folks but the constitution, national defense, veterans’ health care and fair trade are my main issues.
Getting back to the 1973 ruling on abortion, the idea that a fertilized egg is a “non-viable tissue mass” has been overtaken by the science of DNA and advancements in medicine. A fertilized human egg has an identity and is an individual with many traits that will become a living breathing human, set by the joining of two sets of DNA.
The science that the High Court used, although somewhat correct as known at the time, is currently just old fashioned wrong. If I were advising the folks who want abortion or women’s rights as they call it, I would advise them to find an argument based in fact, not in disproven 1970s science. Whether a woman has the right to an abortion with little or no restrictions cannot be argued in a court today, using the basis for the Roe v. Wade. Time for the good folks on the left to figure out a way to justify abortion other than it is removing a non-viable tissue mass from a kind of pregnant woman.
The Supreme Court has reversed itself many dozens of times in the past, and could hear a challenge to Roe in the next few years. If you are a person who wishes to continue the abortion procedure, time to work on an argument that will stand up to the science as known today. To simply say that Roe v. Wade is settled law will not stand the test of time; please Google the Supreme Court reversing itself and you will be surprised by how often it has happened.
Both sides of Roe are saying it is settled law and will not be changed; the right because it will help a conservative nominee be approved, and the left as it is the holy grail for them. The truth is that the past decisions of the court are reviewed and reversed at almost a routine pace. Roe will be reargued; time for the pro-abortion/women’s rights folks to find an argument that will stand up to the science as known in this century.
Roe is just too hot an issue for the court to ignore for long. All the folks on the side of abortion need to prepare an argument based on the constitution, law and science, not on slogans and angry marches or protests.
