Roe v Wade overturned

Democrats act like the world ended. It has not.

In an expected ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a wrongly decided case from 50 years ago, sending the issue of abortion to State legislatures and ending the silly practice of 9 unelected judges making federal laws that are inconsistent with the American Constitution.

No one’s ability to have an abortion was changed by the ruling. All that happened was the Court (correctly in my opinion) sent the issue of laws governing abortions to the democratically elected legislatures of each state. The screaming from the Democrats and “women’s rights” groups is a cacaphony of outrage. What “right” was offended by the judgment and what gave rise to that right anyway?

The Democrats appear to be strong supporters of Planned Parenthood, a racist organization founded by Margaret Sanger for the express purpose of curtailing the growth of the African American population of the United States. Despite claiming African Americans as part of the Democrat voter base, the suppression of black birth rates seems to remain an objective of Democratic leadership who have joined with Planned Parenthood in attacking the Supreme Court’s decision.

Of course, the 63 million children whose lives were ended through abortion don’t get a voice in this debate. In many cases, where a putative mother’s life was in danger or she was a victim of rape or incest, the balance favors permitting abortions without doubt. In many other cases, abortion is warranted under the facts of each case.

I am a strong supporter of a woman’s ability to have jurisdiction over her own body, but with a balance between that ability and the tragic consequence of ending a child’s life.

Oddly, Democrats are strong supporters of mandatory vaccinations. I guess the right to have jurisdiction over one’s own body can be compromised where someone else may be endangered. Is there anyone on Earth who thinks abortion does not endanger the child’s life? Is ending a pregnancy a responsible choice for someone who only wants to punish a boyfriend or husband? Is abortion a “morning after” pill of no consequence? The issue is not black and white but nuanced.

The American Republic is a democracy. Laws are enacted by elected representatives and if the electorate doesn’t like them, they can elect new representatives and repeal or change them. Sending the issue of abortion to state legislatures does no more than uphold the democratic process. The people of every state can elect representatives to enact whatever laws they think appropriate. That is how democracy is supposed to work.

With control of both the House and the Senate, Democrats can take steps to either enact a federal law that reinstates the ability of every American woman to have an abortion or to amend the Constitution. They can even hold a referendum on the issue.

Vilifying the judges of the Supreme Court, threatening them and protesting against their decisions advances no cause, but is destructive to democracy. The role of the Supreme Court is to enforce laws, not make them. When they rule on any issue, the issue goes back to legislators.

It is time for the divisions in American society to come together and end the partisan bickering and divisive hatred, and return to the democratic process. It won’t please everyone but it will produce a result that advances society for most people.

Abortion is legal in most countries for medical reasons and for convenience in many others. A majority of Americans support a woman’s right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court decision did not “restrict a woman’s right to have an abortion” as Democrats incessantly claim and did not alter that right in United States, it simply decided that abortion was not a “constitutional right” and that laws governing abortions were within the jurisdiction of each state. It is hard to argue that was a wrong decision. The institutions of government are important and the Constitution is meaningless if it can be altered by a majority of nine unelected judges on a whim.

Canada also has a Constitution but it differs from the American one. It is younger, more progressive, and (thankfully) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as enshrining a woman’s right to abortion in the now famous Morgantaler case decided in 1988. Always the political opportunist, Justin Trudeau responded to the Roe V Wade decision by saying he would “always stand up for” a woman’s right to control her own body. A right enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and supported by a 1988 Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t benefit from Trudeau’s self-serving and unnecessary promise of support.

Maybe it is time for real American leaders to take steps to once again amend the United States Constitution? Far better to rely on the democratic process to change unpopular laws than to vilify Supreme Court judges for doing the job they swore they would faithfully carry out to uphold the Constitution.