To reduce the enslavement of a woman to forced childbirth down to a comparison with Prohibition, exhibits the utter dismissiveness of the anti-abortion mentality towards women. If they refuse to acknowledge women as people in their own right, they cannot be reasoned with in any way.
12
As someone who held a newborn baby yesterday, I find it completely abhorrent and disgusting that anyone could feel it appropriate or morally acceptable to take life from that baby, at any stage of development, on the basis of the "rights" of the woman. With rights come responsibility. If I engage in a particular behavior, I accept the responsibility for any unwanted results of my behavior. That's called being an adult.
Liberals blame everyone and everything to avoid responsibility. It's truly disturbing that we're having a debate about when it is okay to end the most innocent human life of all. And this has nothing to do with religion. When the heart starts to beat, that human is alive. That's plain old science. Aren't you glad your mother had more regard for you as a fetus than some of you do.
And notice the only judges the left has a problem with are those that disagree with them.
1
I recall in February, the NYT endorsed Jumaane Williams for NYC Public Advocate. It was noted that while he was personally moral opposed to abortion, he supported a woman's right to choose in all respects.
Well, the convulsions from a lot of people posting on the NYT were apoplectic. How dare he? Unfit! I'll never vote for him! Astonishing intolerance. It grasped my attention for 2 related reasons: as a biologist I see the emergence of a sentient human life and as a human rights/woman's rights advocate, I am concerned that the apparent lack of concern for ethics will ultimately damage the pro-choice movement. The lack of concern, an iota of respect for other person's moral views even when that person is totally pro-choice!
Leaving that aside - I wonder do readers and LG consider that this SCOTUS can deposit their moral, religious convictions/prejudices in a lock box on matters related to abortion?
Linda Greenhouse is awesome! Such a knowledgeable reporter is an incredible asset to the NYT. Keep up the great work.
2
Hypocrites unite! A ‘right’ invented out of thin air by the judiciary, is being reduced by the very institution that invested it. Reap what you sow, liberals.
2
This is the ‘Robert’s Court’ at work. A Chief Justice who lied during his confirmation hearing: “balls and strikes”; no overturning of long established rulings. Then he got confirmed and we got Citizens United.
Now the court’s legitimacy is undermined by a ‘justice’ sitting in a stolen seat (guy named Gorsuch) and a much contested new justice (with a past, Cavanaugh).
How does Roberts retain the court’s legitimacy?
That’s his problem and heritage. The citizens don’t believe in the court.
Bob Newman
3
Linda Greenhouse: "On Abortion, Can Judges Set Aside Their Personal Views?"
If they do, Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
2
By casting this as an abortion debate instead of a womens health and procreation issue this has become a Roman Catholic judicial crusade and inquisition.
About 52% of Americans are Protestant, 24% are Catholics, 10% are agnostic/atheists and 1.8% are Jewish. But six of the Supreme Court justices are Catholics and three are Jewish. None of the Republican justices are women. And two of the female Democratic justices have never been mothers. None of the Republican justices are Jewish.
The Supreme Court of the United States sits atop the least democratic branch of our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states. And the notion that the justices don't have a biased political agenda that reflects their personal gender color aka race aka ethnic sectarian origins is ludicrously naïve.
2
Ladies : How do you like being told by your government that you are both intellectually and morally unfit to make decisions regarding your own reproductive health issues ?
This offensive idiocy is being spouted by politicians who could not care less about the issue , but realize that such a stance garners votes from folks who have nothing better to do than mind other people's business.
Despite the fact that some 70% of our citizens are comfortable with Roe, both the Catholic and The Evangelical Churches preach otherwise.
The fact that both of these religious institutions stand accused of child pederasty and abuse speaks volumes about the value of their moral advice and the hypocrisy of treating women as inferior beings , not entitled to full fledged citizenship.
And it is a farce that five Catholic males , posing as Justices , are in the conservative majority on our Supreme Court and will overrule Roe v. Wade because their loyalty lies not with the Constitution's First Amendment that they swore to uphold, but with the tenets of their religion.
Except it is not so funny if you are a woman or a gay person , to be regarded with the distaste inherent in such medieval ideologies.
Together women and LBGT citizens comprise well over 50% of the population.
This cannot and should not be tolerated any further.
Let your voices be raised in anger and concern.
Speak up ! Vote ! Be heard ! There are many more of you than them.
6
Greenhouse endorses Kamala Harris's question during the hearing on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?”
Well, I can think of several ways in which the government makes decisions about male (and female) bodies. Prostitution (both male and female) is illegal. So is suicide -- at least in most jurisdictions. Using narcotics in the privacy of a person's home is illegal. Government also requires certain vaccination against one's will (with certain exemptions depending on the state).
Greenhouse is in favor of personal choice -- except when she isn't. She invents a specious distinction between laws of general applicability (where we should not be free to exercise personal choice) and specific(?) regulations (where we should be free to do so).
I am still scratching my head over that one. Is a law against abortion not a law of general applicability just as much as, say, a law prohibiting the use of peyote?
Greenhouse's jurisprudence is very straightforward. The Court should do whatever Greenhouse's conscience says it should do.
2
In the movie "Unplanned" which had a profound effect on me, there was an abortion that went terribly wrong. A young girl was unconscious and had an adverse affect during the procedure. They were scrambling to save her life and the woman overseeing the Planned Parenthood operation was as cool as a cucumber. Abby Johnson was not. She wanted to call for an ambulance but they refused. Planned Parenthood was more concerned with their reputation than the life of the young woman. She was afraid it would deter other women from ending their pregnancies. Luckily, the young woman did live but the anguish and pain was unbearable.
They say that abortion is safe. This is untrue. There have been instances where ambulances have had to be called due to a botched abortion. The sirens are silenced at the command of Planned Parenthood because they do not want people to know that problems have occurred. We in the pro life movement know this is untrue because we have witnessed these events first hand. So many horrible things can happen during an abortion that are unplanned. Nobody will admit this. But the saddest thing of all is that an innocent human life is taken each and every time an abortion is performed. This breaks my heart and the hearts of many others which is why the fight to end abortion goes on and on. We cannot bear to lose any more of the unborn to this inhumane and cruel practice.
1
@KMW Abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth. Abby Johnston has proven to be an unreliable narrator and inclined to falsehood. Your claims about Planned Parenthood are not supported by the facts.
7
Is this commenter aware of the concept of propaganda?
Is she aware that “many horrible things can happen” during a birth?
6
Emotion unsupported by facts. Abortion is a very low risk procedure. If you ban it, you will not eliminate it but more women will die
7
Abortion fights warp our politics, to the point that people otherwise fully aware of Trump's unfitness still vote for him because he'll appoint anti-abortion judges. We urgently need a way to disentangle these things. Limit judges' tenure? Limit how many a president can appoint? Add more judges, so each one matters less? Something to reduce the stakes, so sanity can return.
27
Linda, Linda, Linda,
Where to begin:
a) Abortion is not, as you well know, not mentioned in the
Constitution.
b) The "Right to Privacy" is not found in the Constitution.
c) You know Justice William O. Douglas said they made up
the Right to Abortion just as they made up the
Right to Privacy.
d) When Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency
you don't seem to mind that they appoint Judges/Justices
that agree with your view.
e) I and many others in the Pro-Life movement want
Contraceptive Education, Pre-Natal Care, Natal Care,
Post-Natal Care, early childhood care/education,
Maternity and Paternity Leave. Likewise we want care
for the poor, the disabled and the elderly.
f) The Constitution, since it does not mention Abortion,
by default leaves it to the States to decide.
g) Judges are not slaves to the Supreme Court, if they
find that the Supreme Court has erred is it not their duty
to rule as their legal conscience informs them and let
their ruling be appealed and, subsequently, adjudicated.
h) Have you ever driven from San Antonio to El Paso ?
There is very little human life out there. If you are so
appalled that there there would be no abortion providers
within that 500 mile distance why not demand that a
Federal Court rule that Texas must have abortion
providers every 50 miles. By the way, those Texans
near New Mexico can go there for abortions.
6
@John Brown - Here's your answer in what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Constitution:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, and more enlightened as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions changed with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times."
Extreme fundamentalists, whether about the Bible or the Constitution, have two core beliefs. First, is that the document as originally written be accepted literally as above question (Strict Construction). Second, where there are any ambiguities, we must look into further writings of the original authors to help us determine what they meant (Original Intent). This is as dangerous in Constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court as it is in radical fundamentalist religiousity.
26
@John Brown
Just to be clear, the Bible does not mention abortion either.
This is particularly important becuase so very many forced-birthers cite their particular religion (meaning, I suppose, something positive about it by doing so), God generically, or some weepy spiritual concern to support their position.
All the sciency stuff gets trotted out when they realize, as they always do, that they are arguing with Godless barbarians.
In fact, the Bible specifically prioritizes the life of the mother over that of the fetus and, in the notoriously and oft-quoted passage about killing a man who kills a pregnant woman, the penalty is for killing the woman.
The penalty for killing the fetus, to be decided by the father, is based on economic and social concerns alone.
People will have and fight for their opinions, but they really ought to admit they are talking about opinions.
23
@John Brown; The right of slaves to be free is not mentioned in the constitution. The right of workers to form an union is not mentioned in the constitution. Women's rights are not mentioned in the constitution. So if we follow your logic, slavery should be still legal, union should be banned as a "conspiracy against the freedom of commerce" and women should not have the right to vote and still be legally a minor whom have to obey her master or husband.
19
This article just confirms my opinion that the issue should be left up to the woman, her family and her doctor or whomever she wants to consult. In the fight for whose ideology gets confirmed by the state or the federal gov't or the Supreme court, this issue will never be solved. Let's make available all the tools for all women so they can make the best decision for themselves. In history we see that women are the more compassionate sex and less violent. In my opinion the pro-life (sic) movement is just a masquerade for an especially virulent form of misogyny.
42
It is ironic that Republican Conservative Pro-Lifers have been angrily denouncing Roe v Wade as judicial overreach from "activist judges" - making law through the courts when Pro-Choicers couldn't win in Congress. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Pro-Lifers can't overturn Roe v Wade in an election or in Congress, so they are trying to pack the federal court system & the Supreme Court with the most radically right-wing judges drawn from the Federalist Society (there are over 3 million attorneys in the country, but only 40,000 to 50,000 so right wing they subscribe to the Federalist Society's heterodox interpretation of law). It's the same story every time. The Right are all about States' Rights until a state passes a law they don't like - and then they turn to federal laws or the courts. Witness trying to stop states that had adopted gay marriage with the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The only thing that matters to them is that they force their own beliefs on the rest of us, and they don't care how they do it. State laws in Red States. Federal Laws to block Blue States, and, when all else fails, right-wing "activist judges."
44
As another aside, it's not just judges who must "do the hard work of setting aside (their) prejudices and preconceptions". This principle is basic to being a good citizen, a good human.
6
The judiciary has been partisan since The Founding.
In 1801 to advance the Federalist agenda after Jefferson became President, during the last days of his administration John Adams appointed 16 Federalist judicial officers including 3 new judges for each Circuit, a move later known as his "Midnight Appointments." His effort to some extent was later frustrated by Jefferson who refused to pay them.
In 1937 FDR advanced his own Court Packing Plan to populate The Court with Justices who would support his New Deal legislation. Under the plan each Justice 70 or older would be offered retirement at full pay. Those refusing would be appointed an assistant with full voting rights, thereby insuring him a majority. The legislation was tabled when to preserve the court's "independence," Justice Roberts voted to support FDR, a change known as "the switch in time that save nine."
Elections ultimately inform judicial impartiality. As such this debate is premised on the non starter that judges ever were or ever will be non partisan.
1
For those following along at home, that was Owen Roberts, not John Roberts.
The most interesting aspect of FDR’s court-packing proposal, which is often vilified, is how effective it was in defeat.
While the membership of the court remained the same, after 1937 the court ceased invalidating New Deal legislation. Thenceforward laws enacted by congress were found, remarkably, to be constitutional. Same justices, same constitution. Different outcome.
FDR reminded the court that it serves at the pleasure of congress. The constitution says there shall be a court, but not who will be on it or how it will be organized.
It’s long past time this Court was taught the same lesson.
Republicans have always been better than Democrats at setting aside what they might view as "small differences" in order to get their big win on major issues. Look at the current dialogue around Biden's possible candidacy. While he's being vilified for smelling a woman's hair, the Porn-Star President and his party look on and laugh. Imagine a woman coming forward and claiming that Trump acted inappropriately because he "smelled my hair"! So until Democrats stop eating their own and allowing the MINORITY PARTY from winning elections and controlling the confirmation process for judges by continued control of the Senate, we are going to see MORE immoral judges being elevated to the highest courts in this land and setting the judicial agenda. As Obama showed, just being able to nominate a judge isn't enough if that judge can't even get a hearing. Democrats have to learn what's REALLY important in their lives and focus on seeing those issues come to fruition. Until they do, we'll continue to suffer under a judiciary that pretends to interpret the laws fairly but in reality twists the law to meet their own political agenda, as Scalia did for so many years.
14
The first thing that should happen in the abortion debate is that ALL male judges should recuse themselves from making any rulings.
4
No. Men can be fair and women unfair. You’ll recall Roe was decided by men, and it was white men who freed the slaves.
It’s silly and belittling to reduce us to our personal experience. Empathy is understanding others. The American experience is a giant progression of the powerful granting power to the powerless. (Never without struggle, to be sure, but still.)
Men can understand women’s agency. Some — and some women too, let’s not forget — just refuse to.
1
Why does this backwards country continue this abortion debate, especially with 21st Century birth control and medical abortion technology???? Get a life, Americans, and deal with the myriad REAL current problems like lack of universal healthcare, affordable education, modern infrastructure and public transportation and a planet that is deteriorating at an accelerated pace from human consumption.
8
The judiciary is getting in the middle of abortion the same way it got in the middle of gay and transgender rights. The shoe is now on the other foot and someone is complaining about it.
Yes Ms. Greenhouse,
On Abortion, Can Judges Set Aside Their Personal Views?
Can Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan set aside 'THEIR' personal views???
1
Time to hold the people responsible for unwanted pregnancies responsible. Men. They are the ones having sex without protection or even taking their protection off during sex because it feels better. Then they duck their responsibilities to pay for the child.
Let's have all fertile males have to have pregnancy insurance as part of their health insurance. $500K minimum, the approximate cost of raising 2 children. That might change behavior.
Start shaming men for having sex without responsibility. All these men need to be shamed for their actions and be made to cover their actions.
7
Your suggestion completely, absolutely misses the point. It’s not a matter of economic responsibility. It’s a matter of an individual’s right to live her life unmolested by the state.
We already have paternity suits in this country, and plenty of punitive laws to collect money from fathers. What we don’t have is the security of knowing an unwanted pregnancy can be ended legally and safely.
3
I don't understand how it can be rational [nor just] that the rights of an unformed bunch of cells can take precedence over the rights of a full-fledged citizen.
12
There will always be abortions. Legal when available, illegal when not. They used to be done on kitchen tables if you were poor, and in hospitals and doctors' offices of you had money. But they were done and will be done that way again. I'm o!d enough to remember.
8
Here's a little thought experiment.
Given there's there's no logical border in fetal development after conception, the anti-abortion position inevitably argues that a blastula must be accorded the rights of personhood.
IVF inevitably ends with "extra" blastulas either left frozen or thawed and killed. Mitt Romney has grandchildren who are products of IVF procedures -- and undoubtedly, from the anti-abortion point of view, has a number of grandchildren cryogenically imprisoned in IVF clinics.
Politicians who cynically use the abortion issue to manipulate their constituencies, know that they have the resources to afford abortions no matter what the law in their states. The procedure is limited, fast, and can be performed in a matter of days.
But let the rich consider this. The elimination of abortion rights will inevitably and logically lead to the banning of IVF. And in this case, because of the complexity and long-term nature of the process, won't be available even to the rich.
The next great mission: freeing the millions of American cryogenically imprisoned through no fault of their own in nitrogen canisters throughout the United States.
8
Any woman, anywhere must have a right to her own health decisions. Ms. Greenhouse is right in maintaining that a woman must have the right to decide for herself.
9
Considering the claims of evil in the abortion debate are Murder on one side and Enslavement on the other, the "don't like it; don't get it" retort is deeply insulting. It reduces a question of extraordinary moral gravity to a jocular quip. We aren't debating flavors of ice cream here; we're debating atrocities! Let's grow up an act like it.
Why are we even still talking about this? The decision to have an abortion rests solely with the person who is pregnant. I am guessing many conservative women have had abortions and many liberal women have decided to keep the baby.
8
If fetuses are considered to be alive then will the states declaring this to be so allow them to be claimed as dependents for tax purposes. And will an anti-abortion administration like the current one allow this to be claimed for federal tax purposes, too.
And if a woman says she suffered a spontaneous abortion and claims the unborn fetus as a dependent, who is going to determine this. Will the women have to some official documentation to show that they were really pregnant and, if so, how will this square with medical confidentiality.
3
The Republican justices on the Court are not human beings. They do not have personal views. They are partisan robots.
3
Being defeated in war means adults lose confidence and tradition fades away, which is the circumstance I was brought up in. The Western civilization (so much better than the Japanese) is we do not regulate what you think in your brain, what you feel in your heart and we do not care what you do in your private time. These were new, blandly taught by teachers from the wartime. I do not think I heard on abortion then, but I naturally assumed later life spans from birth to death as it looks, which is where the Western civilization leads us to. I cannot think of any alternative.
1
I am always thinking that if abortion is prohibited, then the pro lifers should be responsible for raising the children and putting them through college. They don't take on that responsibility because so-called advocacy for life doesn't go that far. Is it better for a child to be raised by a parent who didn't want it in the first place? Maybe they should focus on microbes in a lab who will die in the process of developing vaccines or enhance scientific knowledge for the advancement of human welfare. No one is forced to have an abortion. I just don't get it.
9
Not everyone believes in God. Not everyone who believes in God believes in the same God. Not everyone who believes in the same God believes the same way.
Policy makers' individual beliefs should always be in their hearts; that's a part of them. Yet they must remember, and respect, that they work for Everyone.
16
Roe v Wade is the product of judges’ personal views. No legislature was involved in making it law.
3
@Comp
I agree with putting a woman's life first.
But the laws are saying any health reason is sufficient to terminate a pregnancy. Since health problems always happen during pregnancy, the new laws allow abortion at any time during pregnancy, which a vast majority of Americans oppose. Of course, the rest of the story is that a majority of Americans want the be able to choose abortion in the first trimester. (All according to Gallop polling.)
@God
In the absence of further and irrefutable Revelation, the morality of abortion will remain an opinion--based on a variety of religious beliefs or non-belief. My own religion, for instance, always puts a woman's life first, and that decision is always made by a woman in concert with her doctor and religious advisor--not a court and not a legislature.
18
@God Who are you to think you speak for God?
1
Anti-abortion activism is an answer to the self-evident nihilism of a universe. It provides purpose and meaning for many. That need for meaning supersedes all other commitments.
I'm certain that many who support Trump detest his character, but believe, that for whatever his flaws, Trump will successfully put an end to Roe v Wade where establishment Republicans have only given lip service to the goal.
So, the great paradox for the Republicans.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, Trump's constituency will fragment -- his deficits will suddenly become important again
So to further paradox, Establishment Republicans who've always given lip service to anti-abortionism, now would like to see it happen, because it will weaken Trump.
The next great mission: freeing the millions of Americans cryogenically imprisoned in IVF centers throughout the US.
4
@Eben
Last I looked it is not in Congress' portfolio, nor our mockery of a Supreme Court to correct "the self-evident nihilism of the universe".
But if it were, what leads you to believe that abortion is the first, the best, the only place to intercede?
Starvation is a good candidate...or gun deaths... or corporations killing of a third of a million people to increase their profit (not become profitable mind you, to become even more profitable).
Those things, I expect, are fine with you, and of far less importance than seizing control of the feminine half of society and wringing the will to live out them.
I tend to believe the universe is a fine and forgiving place. Maybe even designed to be so. It is the drooling, power mad insistence of the few who have the gall to believe they are bound to control all the rest of humanity who are the problem.
I call them Republicans. You might agree with their ways, somehow, but their means are pure abomination.
1
It is very likely that Roe will be overturned, and it has very little to do with politics. It is a reflection of very poor jurisprudence in the initial decision.
Roe (as I understand it) struggled with the question of the rights of the fetus vs the rights of the mother by declaring that the fetus acquired rights at the point when it became viable outside the womb. That was the basis for outlawing abortion in the third trimester.
The problem is that neonatal medicine is advancing very rapidly, and we are approaching the point where the fetus might become viable in the first quarter. This would remove the protection that Roe offered to pregnant women.
Freedom of choice can only be assured if either the court writes a stronger decision in favor of abortion rights or by a constitutional amendment. Sadly neither option is very likely.
3
@seoul cooker
I'll give you 10 - 1 odds Chief Justice John Roberts upholds Roe, and it won't be any surprise!
Once again, Ms. Greenhouse needs to acknowledge that the Supreme Court will never declare abortion illegal, because they cannot do so. All they can do is state that there is nothing in the Constitution (ignoring those penumbras and emanations) that guarantees a right to abortion.
Then it is up to the democratic process - as it always should have been - to decide when an abortion is merely a medical procedure and when it is infanticide. It is likely that some states will have much more liberal allowances for abortion than others will. That is to be expected on an issue as divisive as this one. But a patchwork of laws is better than having one side dictate to the other.
8
@J. Waddell No one is dictated to by the legality of abortion. No one is forced to have one.
3
Where to begin?
1) From Mor, California: "A fetus, whether defective or not, does not know it exists." (One hour after birth, a newborn baby doesn't know it exists, either.)
2) From Ms. Greenhouse: It seems to me that if the government of Indiana...was actually willing to help families cope with children who need intensive, lifelong care..." (I'm here to tell Ms. Greenhouse that Indiana DOES help families cope with children who need intensive, lifelong care, for which my family is extremely grateful.)
3) From Ms. Greenhouse: "...women have to travel hundreds of miles and jump through multiple regulatory hoops to exercise their constitutional right." (Which constitutional right?)
4) From Ms. Greenhouse: "The best bumper sticker I’ve ever seen read: 'Opposed to abortion? Don’t have one.'” (Opposed to wife-beating? Don't do it.")
2
@David Lauryn
1) Does that mean you accept abortion in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus is very little like a newborn?
2) is partially true but there are many people who don't get the help they need. And that is not the main issue about abortion rights.
3) Don't be silly.
4) As a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, and a fetus are not a person, 4) is irrelevant.
13
@David Lauryn Actually it’s not true that there is no neurological difference in the capacity for self-awareness between a fetus and a newborn. There is. But it is also true that many cultures, including ancient Greeks and Romans, did not consider a newborn to be a human person. I am not advocating return to this view for legal, psychological and ethical reasons. But I stand firm on my contention that NOT aborting a damaged fetus is immoral. If you have a special-needs child you know that their quality of life will be impaired, regardless of whatever care the state provides. So why to do it? Why to create a life filled with suffering when it can be avoided? Comparisons with eithanasia for the disabled are specious. A disabled person is a person. They want to live (if they don’t, it’s a different discussion). A fetus has no desires, plans, dreams, memories or fears. So why to force existence on it?
6
@David Lauryn
Dude, honestly (I presume you're male with that name), you want to force women to carry a defective fetus to term? As males we don't have standing here or at best we need to thread gingerly. It's not a space for government prohibition. It's the epitome of personal autonomy. We have far too much Government and you want more here? Indeed, where to begin?
6
Ms. Greenhouse MISSES A FUNDAMENTAL POINT that shows how fallacious her argument is. If you don't become pregnant, then you will not need to consider having an abortion.
Ultimately, I am talking about young women thinking about the consequences resulting from a moment of passion. The young man may be irresponsible (I consider such men to be sperm donors, not fathers), but the young woman bears much of the responsibility; especially when the young man no longer is interested in the young woman and the child created in this moment of passion.
The child that is conceived in this moment of passion ought to have a life. The fact that some of these children will be aborted simply indicates that (what can be considered) a mistake made "in the heat of the moment" can be easily remedied by performing an abortion. This child didn't ask to be born, but two (2) allegedly (briefly) consenting adults made her/he possible.
2
@dmanuta, as another commenter said on another thread, you can't ban abortions; you can only criminalize them. The rate of abortion doesn't decrease just because you drive it underground.
I believe that the logical outcome of your argument is quite cruel, but I remember the days prior to Roe. I don't think we should consider pregnancy a punishment for sex. My belief is that all babies deserve to be wanted; no baby should be the result of a forced pregnancy.
17
@dmanuta It isn't clear why you believe the young woman bears "much" of the responsibility, not the man. All the man has to say is "Never mind" to be free of providing any kind of support? Apart from this, what if one of the adults did not consent?
10
@dmanuta what’s the difference between using a condom and having an abortion? In both cases, the child who could have been born is not born. Why does a fetus have a right to be gestated more than an ovum has the right to be impregnated? Neither contraception nor abortion are mistakes: they are necessary means for women to regulate our reproduction. Yours is a religious view that has no meaning outside your sectarian context.
5
Linda Greenhouse wrote in an answer to Caracho, Maine, that "some states allow pharmacists not to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception if they disapprove of the product." If their religions forbid the pharmacists and any other workers in the medical field (medical doctors, nurses, paramedics,...) to provide the services that their patients need, and therefore put their life of in danger physically or emotionally or both, they should get out of the medical field and find another line of work where they will not hurt anybody. Every time religion is introduced in the public sphere, the biggest losers are always the women as the conservative religious agenda demonstrated.
51
It is pro life groups who have had an impact in reducing abortions and placing restrictions on their taking place. Their tireless efforts in proving life exists within the womb have worked wonders to convince people that abortion is immoral.
We cannot predict how even the conservative justices will vote on life issues. Those who support pro life causes hope they will support the pro life movement but they do not have a crystal ball to predict it will happen. People thought back in 1973 when the roe v Wade case came before the Supreme Court it would be defeated by those appointed by Republican presidents but it did not work out that way. Some of them voted with the liberals and that is how abortion became the law of land.
We know how the liberal justices will vote but not so much about where all the conservatives stand on the issue. There are one or two who may decide to side with the liberals in certain cases and side with the conservative majority on others. I think the nature of each case will be the deciding factor.
4
@KMW
In this context, Liberal is usually a pejorative for Big Government. Now what is bigger than taking over someone's body and forcing them to do what they don't want? Liberal indeed.
12
When a judge cannot be fair and impartial in a case because of the parties involved or the lawyers or the subject matter, judicial ethics require that the judge recuse himself or herself from presiding.
There are subjects which are too difficult for some judges or Supreme Court Justices to separate from their personal biases and deeply held views, thereby making it impossible for those jurists to render impartial decisions on those subjects.
One of those subjects is religion, and another is abortion.
This why the decision about terminating a pregnancy should belong exclusively to the woman who is pregnant.
The decision should never involve a court -- particularly not a court where a judge, by reason of religion, has already decided the case in his or her mind before it ever comes to court.
25
@sdw What about a judge, who by their own personal reasoning,which may be formed by their view of religion and God, believes abortion should be allowed, even should be a right? That judge is not impartial. Then that judge should recluse his- or her- self?
1
@bob Honestly, any invocation of religious doctrine as a basis for any decision is fundamentally irrational. I believe a solid moral foundation can be far better understood and expressed when completely free of religious doctrine. To the extent that people invoke religion as their basis for supporting justice, OK, good to have that support I guess. But underlying reasons are very important.
I could not accept a judge's ruling as logical, even if in my favor, if it were based on religious doctrine. To your specific question, The problem with recusal is it is only self imposed. Some religious conservative judges are blatantly biased and they don't care. They are there explicitly to promote an anti-constitutional religious agenda. I think an external review of a judge's rulings and logic are a better basis for determining whether bias exists and recusal is warranted.
It is kind of like the (superficially) apparent libertarian conundrum in which they support some ostensibly progressive, or liberal policies, but based on grotesque neofeudalist power of wealth over democracy kinds of concepts. Hardly progressive at root. Right policy position for the wrong reason. Deals with the devil are a bad idea.
8
Any judge worth his or her ethical salt must follow precedent and the principles of stare decisis.
Yes there is a recognition from the Supremes that on occasion society needs a jump start into racial justice, Brown, and a woman’s right to her own biological destiny, Roe, and privacy rights implied in our great Constitution that gave us other great civil rights oriented decisions, and in such cases precedent is explicitly overruled or honestly distinguished.
But then there are cases where the Court has deviated from the ineluctable quest for justice the Founders mandated in our Constitution and Justices have made political decisions based on intellectually dishonest opinions to give advantage to politicians of their own political stripe, particularly, of late, in cases having to do with voting and political campaigns, e.g. Shelby County, Citizens United.
This is not to mention the crop of rogue junior district court judges who think they can disregard settled law with opinions that only can only charitably characterized as bizarre. It’s up to the federal judiciary commission to discipline their brethren who knowingly and willfully violate their judicial oaths.
2
“Conscience” based opt-outs are igniting a widespread measles epidemic, which, not that long ago, had been declared cured, or wiped out. Now, there are widespread cases, and while this may be a nuisance for some, it may cause death in others (think immunocompromised).
It is for the good of society that everyone is vaccinated, and it is also for the good of society that those who seek an abortion be allowed to obtain said procedure. There are numerous reasons why an abortion may be sought, and it is not for another to second guess the decision that the pregnant woman makes with her physician, To do otherwise leads to harm of the pregnant woman, and, should the pregnancy be forced to term, may lead to devastating consequences for all involved.
19
@Tom But must someone assist in an abortion if doing so goes against their conscience? Must someone end the life of another by the death penalty or war if it goes against their conscience?
In addition, is any reason sufficient enough to end the life of an child in the womb? That's what the latest laws allow, by a plain reading of their texts.
@bob
Re-worded:
In addition, is every reason sufficient enough to end the life of an child in the womb? That's what the latest laws allow, by a plain reading of their texts, they allow abortion for any reason a woman and a doctor can agree on related to the health of the mother. Since pregnancy produces many health problems, it's a wide opening for any reason to end a pregnancy at any time.
There's a reason the GOP has been stacking the courts for decades with political ideologues. And the reason is simple - you can always count on ideologues to interpret the law through the lens of their own beliefs. In this case, conservative beliefs, or, more accurately, conservative bias.
There unbridled zeal to appoint activist judges has already de-legitimized the highest court in the land. But, for them, that's no matter of concern. In fact, nothing is a matter of concern to them, except the elaboration and expansion of their own power. Power, for power's sake alone.
And this is precisely what makes the modern GOP so dangerous.
22
@Chicago Guy Even though I am against abortion, I fear as you do for the effects of right wing ideologues who care little for the lives they say they want to save.
3
My comment was in regard to the specific question as to "when protection of life under the law, or life itself, begins".
I do not seek to answer this question but rather to say that since strong opinions differ on this matter, we should not frame laws that enforce one view on every individual. To deny abortions, forces that decision on all; to permit abortions does not enforce abortions but rather it allows choice.
When there is no clear way of reconciling the two sides, the legal outcome should be guided by other considerations such as maximizing freedom, defending liberty.
29
I'm a long-time reader and fan of yours, and so appreciate your thoughtful commentary on the Court, especially in these crazy times. Since the GOP started fighting so hard to keep poor women from free birth control, it is hard for me to take seriously any real moral argument when they talk about abortion. I agree - if Indiana was offering to pay for the care of disabled children who are born, then it would be a different conversation. Instead, taking care of a truly disabled child is not only emotional devastating but could easily destroy a family's finances. There is never any room to hear about the fetuses growing with no brain, or lungs outside a chest cavity that closed without them, or some of the other horrible congenital issues. Forcing parents to carry that child to term, only to have it die at birth, is cruel and unusual punishment.
39
@Cathy
"... if Indiana was offering to pay for the care of disabled children who are born, then it would be a different conversation."
Not really.
A woman should still not be required to carry a deformed fetus to term, regardless of whether the state would care for the resulting child.
Forced pregnancy is still slavery, no matter what the other terms are.
62
@Cathy
Would you really change your stand on abortion if states provided more care for disabled children?
Come and stand for the rights of all children, even if too many states seem to care little for the child once she is born.
@Jerry Engelbach
"Forced pregnancy is still slavery..."
Unless you are the victim of rape,
consent was given to possibly becoming pregnant.
However, their is no possibility of consent
being asked from the human in the womb -
Abortion is still the killing of a fellow human...
1
It's funny how the term "litmus test" only ever seems to apply to liberal judges seeking the highest bench. Never mind that the conservative judges are put in place not to preserve a constitutionally protected right they as judges should protect and uphold, but to dismantle and demolish and in the process deprive women of their hard earned right to choose. We're seeing the extent of conservative governance, it simply has no bounds and doesn't care a whit about what's just much less what's constitutional.
16
Statehouses in Indiana, Georgia, and many others are effectively creating a situation in which the most creative, most highly educated, best minds of this generation will avoid living and working in their States. They are essentially making themselves into ghettos of like minded religious conservatives who demand the right to impose their values and moral codes on others who do not share them. This way leads only to the diminution of every aspect of life in these states as the best and brightest leave for greener pastures.
33
"The real question is whether the government should enforce the consequence of one opinion. There are strong convictions on both sides of this issue, and it is appropriate to debate whether abortion is morally right or wrong. But it goes against the principles of freedom and liberty to enact laws to enforce one view on every individual. "
No polity can cop out from addressing the question of who are its members, because the fundamental responsibility of any polity to which autonomous individuals surrender their liberty is protection of at least their fundamental rights. No right can be more fundamental than existence itself, life. So, to pretend, as Harry Blackmun feigned ignorance, that the "judiciary cannot" address this issue (even while he did, short circuiting the larger social discussion) is the fundamental dishonesty of Roe v. Wade, which makes it the twentieth century's Dred Scott and worthy of similar consignment to the junk bin of Constitutional jurisprudence.
3
“When autonomous individuals surrender their liberty” is really hard to apply in the first trimester except to the mother. When establishing law, it is not a cop out avoid a single determination. Roe vs Wade provided a sliding scale over time for the competing rights of the offspring and of the mother. It does not say life begins at birth, it does not say life begins at conception, instead it provides a balance that changes during development rather than enforcing one view on all.
My original comment was really that a law based on “life begins at conception” would restrict choice, a law based on “life begins at birth” permits choice; since it is impossible to gain agreement, the law should be designed with other criteria ... and I would suggest that the individual woman’s decision should be respected rather than restricted. Weigh a doubt with a certainty and craft the law to favor the latter.
2
@JOHN When the embryo or fetus can survive on its own, you have a point. Before then, the only life (and opinion) that matters is that of the woman carrying it.
6
@JOHN
Dred Scott didn't enslave someone to carry him to viability. It's at best a stretch but basically a lazy analogy. Do we want more or less government in our lives. If you're a great believer in majoritarian mores and thus rule then the answer is yes and presume that's yours but thankfully we're a republic and the mob doesn't get to enslave the individual. That's the stuff of burka's and religious police.
3
Mitch McConnell is hard at work packing the courts. If Trump and a GOP Senate were to win in 2020, its almost a given that RBG and Breyer would step down during that time due to age/health. The Federalist Society would immediately install 2 hard right ideologues and then abortion would be subsumed into an onslaught against civil rights, health and labor rights, social program protections, environmental protections, etc. etc. Trump once said (later recanted) that women who seek abortions should be subject to “some form of punishment” if the procedure is banned. If red states, with SCOTUS support, ban it and punish it, I fear a serious rip in what unity we have left, especially if those same states don’t humanely support the resulting unwanted children.
11
This abortion issue gets back to the unanswerable question: when does human life begin? Clearly, we all would agree that a baby's life cannot be terminated (assuming no medical complications) after birth. That would be murder. Anti-abortion supporters truly believe that human life begins at conception. Pro-choice supporters for the most part believe that viability is the critical date.
Neither side is right or wrong; when human life begins is really an unanswerable question. But perhaps there is some room for compromise on an earlier date of viability.
1
@Schneiderman
You are absolutely correct. And the place where decisions like this are made is the legislature, not the courts. The courts don't define when a killing is murder and when it is justifiable self defense - the legislatures do that.
The best thing the courts could do would be to acknowledge that defining when an abortion constitutes homicide is outside of the purview of the courts and send those decisions back to the legislatures.
3
@J. Waddell Wrong. Courts have historically interpreted the doctrine of self-defense. And there are certainly many circumstances when we deny care to disabled infants with severe, unalterable defects, so even a full-term infant is allowed to have its life ended (or not sustained) under the law. The issue isn't "when does life begin" and it never has been. The issue is "when does a woman become a slave to an entity that is dependent on her".
18
@Schneiderman, I think you ask the wrong question. The question isn't when life begins, but whether women have the right to autonomy that Roe protects.
Casey establishes that the fetus has rights after viability (approximately 24 weeks), and every state regulates these so-called late-term abortions. I think this is the compromise you're looking for. There's no way of changing the date of viability--that's up to Mother Nature.
However, the anti-choice movement believes that life begins at conception, so they won't accept this compromise. I think you're very mistaken if you believe they would be satisfied with half a loaf--for example, a cut-off date of twelve weeks. You would only heat things up.
6
Did these people not know that "Roe vs Wade" is not a law but a court decision?
5
@Jayden Lewis Court decisions are law, silly.
1
Have also always liked the bumper sticker: "Don't like abortions? Then don't have one". Recently I heard another that I like even more: "Not every sperm needs a name."
21
In the matter of a personal decision like abortion, it's not surprising that judges would be influenced by personal opinions. However, Ms. Greenhouse's analysis only notes the personal opinions of those who might not find a constitutional right to abortion or are concerned about the life in the womb. No note is made of other personal opinions people bring to judicial decisions.
When a right to act on one's conscience is mentioned, Ms. Greenhouse's response is that "Our [opposing] voices are not part of this conversation". Yet, one argument often made in these com boxes is that other people do not have a right to stand up for the life in the womb.
In fact, open debates are happening across the country.
3
@bob, I think you missed her point. The question isn't whether we're debating abortion. Ms. Greenhouse was pointing out that the courts are ruling in favor of more and more "opt-out" decisions to allow employers to opt out of covering birth control or pharmacists to opt out of providing the morning-after pill. The voices of citizens who believe that those things should be made available for the good of society are not being heard.
I really am curious about your position on birth control. Do you think it should be universally covered?
2
@SandraH.
Yes. Birth control should be universally covered, with exceptions for organizations whose employees oppose it for religious or moral reasons. That would include religious organizations, but not secular businesses.
I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby decision no more than I'd want a non-believer at Jehovah's Witnesses to not be covered for blood transfusions. (I don't even know if that has even happened.) I also believe that signing a form stating an religious institution's opposition to contraception so contraception can be provided without their action is NOT sanctioning it.
@bob No one has the right to use another's body for survival.
5
Linda, your insight into this issue is invaluable. It is truly outrageous that in 2019 the United States is trying to take away the reproductive freedom of half its population. Sexism is the deepest of the deep institutional sins and the fact that we are still talking about the right to abortion shows how very far we have to go to be truly equal under the law. Forced to bear a child? Does that sound like a free country? And what is even more angering is that abortion will always be available for rich women - Republican or Democrat, Evangelical or Agnostic. This is why feminists recognized early on that if you want to control women, control the means of reproduction.
21
@Lily
I suppose the very rich have been able to do just about
whatever they want and with their bevy of high priced lawyers avoid due punishment - as the recent case in
Chicago made clear.
No one is controlling the means of reproduction,
but once a human is willingly conceived she
has a right to be born just like their mother was born
and their grandmother was born and their great grandmother unto the first generation of humans.
2
@John Brown "...once a human is willingly conceived she has a right to be born" This is untrue. No one has the right to survive off the forced use of an unwilling person's body. The rights of the woman take precedence. Potentials do not have rights.
5
Few quick thoughts. The concept that the SCOTUS (or any judge on any court) is to not politicize or personalize their application of the law may not be specifically stated in the Constitution, (I did no research) but they are so required, ab initio, and if they can’t adhere to that, they’re not qualified to hold those positions. The next is that the government believes that it has the right to force the birth of a child, but that the child has no similar right to be cared for after birth. I see no honor in that.
4
The biggest problem with abortion rights is that one side makes it a moral issue, which is a religious-based set of values, rather than an ethical issue, which is void of religion. Anyone looking at abortion as a "moral" choice is, per se, always going to use the argument that it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed under most if not all circumstances. The thing is, we live in a country that clearly outlines our democracy as being a government that separates church (morals) from state (ethical). Once the judiciary, if they haven't already, recognized and dealt with this hot-button issue as an ethical one according to our laws, and not a moral one, then we will always have endless debates about it because clearly one side sees this as a moral issue (GOP) while the other sees it as an ethical one (Dems). I know I'm generalizing here, but braodly, that's how I see it.
8
@Sheila I strongly disagree that "Anyone looking at abortion as a "moral" choice is, per se, always going to use the argument that it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed under most if not all circumstances." I am pro-choice and view that as my moral conclusion and opinion. Forbidding a women to make a decision about the use of her body is immoral. In individual cases, a women weighing that choice may conclude it is morally better to have an abortion than make the lives of existing children even more difficult. Or one might limit the number of children because protecting the environment is a major moral value, and consumption is the major driver of environmental problems and increasing population is a major driver of consumption. And it is immoral to keep people poor to limit their consumption!
6
Thanks for this very successful opinion column. I read and enjoy all your writing but this is a real treat!
4
There was no right to personal privacy read into the Constitution until at least the 1960s, and Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. State laws primarily governed abortion then, and unfortunately soon they will govern them again when Roe is eventually overturned by the newly rightward lurching SCOTUS.
So the teenage daughters of the more affluent white evangelicals who fought so hard to have people like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominated to the SCOTUS will soon need to travel to New York and California to get their abortions. Just like in the 1950s and 60s! (Make America Great Again!)
And the ones who can’t afford to do that—lower socioeconomic class whites, African Americans and Latinas—will wind up having their babies in states who have slashed sex education programs in schools, funding for contraceptives, and other benefits for poor, unwed mothers, because, of course, they are lazy and make poor choices and shouldn’t be rewarded for either.
So to the GOP, you can have all the freedom, personal choice and rights to privacy you can afford.
37
@Jack Sonville
By its explicit language, the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to privacy in one's home: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . . "
The constitutional right to privacy was articulated by Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States in 1928. The US Supreme Court bizarrely ruled (later overturned) that wiretaps obtained without a warrant did not violate the 4th & 5th Amendments or the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
In a famous eloquent dissent, Brandeis asserted that privacy is an individual right, saying "The Founders conferred against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.”
In 1886, in Boyd v. United States, the SCOTUS held a search & seizure of "a man's private papers” violated the 4th Amendment. The Court reviewed the history behind the 4th & 5th Amendments, saying: "The principles ... in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty. . . [and] apply to all invasions on the part of the Government . . . of the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property...."
1
One bit of realpolitik underlying the GOPs long standing and successful use of abortion as a wedge issue is the tacit understanding that restrictions mostly only affect poor people.
Those with means will always be able to travel or do whatever is necessary to get a safe, legal abortion.
31
The male body: This was drafted, and required to do terrible things, on pain of court martial.
8
Point taken. But did you try the dodges that worked then ? E.G. : Romney/ trump. Did you consider moving to Canada,? How about college? Registering as a conscientious objector? I feel terrible about your regrets but you had options. Making abortion illegal eliminates choice for women.
Let's get to the central reason why Republicans want to outlaw abortion. Some of them, a few, really, might actually do it for religious or "right to life" issues.
The real reason it's done is to keep immigrants and minorities (meaning, blacks and Hispanics) in a cycle of poverty they can never get out of. You force children to be born and then you make sure they don't have access to adequate places to live, food, health care, and an education.
You keep the parents in a cycle of poverty where the likely outcomes are either incarceration or death.
Then you have another generation of people who can't climb society's ladder, what used to be called "the American Dream." (The American Dream was only meant for white people. C'mon.)
If you were really, really serious about preventing abortions, you would be throwing birth control at people. You would be funding a cheap method of birth control that everyone would have access to.
Why wouldn't you? Either fundamental religious beliefs or....needing to keep certain Americans where they belong, i.e. not competing with you for jobs or college placement.
27
I am uncertain why Judge Jeffrey Sutton gets Ms. Greenhouse's respect. At the time of his appointment I was polled by the ABA and gave the ABA my favorable opinion - which I have since greatly regretted. He is an outcome oriented judge who will twist like a pretzel to get the result his politics prefers. He has a bad case of federalitis and should be called out for his poor performance as a judge.
14
With any other issue before a court a judge would have to recuse if they had already formed a position on the issue - so why are six publicly avowed Catholics permitted to rule on abortion cases? Is the Supreme Court exempt from recusal rules and ethics? Or is it politically wrong to question if judges can be held responsible for espousing policies their religion demands from them as faithful adherents and imposing those beliefs on unbelievers? By the way, just to head off at the pass all the vitriol one could expect from the Church for posting this comment - I am Catholic. An answer would be nice since it appears there is no way for a fair hearing on this issue given the current composition of the court.
21
@Raul Campos
Oh come on--Are you not aware that that the rationale in the Roman rite for excluding women from priesthood is that the image of Christ cannot be perceived in the female form? I write as a former Catholic and with considerable regret that this is the case. The Church itself is in great moral and spiritual error in this respect. The Church's compassion does not extend to women (or children--if we are to consider the overwhelming evidence if systemic child abuse.)
9
@Raul Campos, the question isn't disqualification, but recusal. Judges recuse themselves if they are perceived to have bias in a particular case.
5
@Joe Most Catholics approve of at least some pro-choice rights. Catholics (and evangelicals) have abortions at at least the same rate as women at large (some feel because of conflicts about using contraception.) (Many Catholics are pro-choice; see Catholics for Choice for articles and information.) The problem is the hierarchy, known to have serious problems in any area related to sex! The Supreme Court justices aren't any Catholics: most are presenting themselves or are unusually conservative Catholics, e.g,. Thomas is off the charts. Do note that Justice Sotomayer is a Catholic. The GOP seeks out the extremists and hide behind accusations of "anti-Catholic" views.
2
One of the biggest challenges of this debate and of others is the idea that religious opinions are somehow elevated above any other arbitrary opinion. Exemptions from following the law are begin carved out to accommodate "religious views". That is patently absurd and obviously very dangerous as an idea and precedent.
A simple and undeniable observation has to be recognized in this conversation. That is: Religious views are an arbitrary matter of voluntary choice. No different in any real material way than any other world view a person might adopt. There may be differences in the level passion in which those views are held compared to other views but that is certainly not a legitimate reason to hold those arbitrary views above any others. In this perspective I am not ignoring the passing on of culture or tradition. I am asserting though, that that is a choice. In this, people actually do have volition.
Religion, per se, should have no more weight in the discussion around abortion than any other point of view, and arguably less since it is less logically defensible. Moral and ethical perspectives should be arguable without the arbitrary (non) validation of religion.
It does come down to a matter of democracy and of politics. Politics have allowed our judicial branch to become distorted. Ironically, in the name of originalism, the conservatives are incorrectly asserting religious primacy over the primacy of democracy. Which is, arbitrary perspectives over democracy.
60
@trebor; thank you for so eloquently stating what I've long wondered... Why is it that sincerely-held "RELIGIOUS convictions (or beliefs)" outweigh any OTHER sincerely-held convictions (or beliefs)? It seems to me that this begins to descend the slippery slope of "congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion."
23
@trebor
I could not agree with you more. Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
1
@trebor
You seem to be under the delusion that humans
are rational and that logical and constitutionally
based arguments will convince all and any.
Read up on Supreme Court decisions and ask yourself how the majority of Federal Judges will rule one way and then the majority of the Supreme Court will rule the other way...do they rely upon different logical
systems, have different Constitutions they rely upon, Federal Laws ?
Go and sit in a courtroom an listen the arguments
over Constitutional issues/Contracts and you will see
where logic will not get you.
1
Society is grappling with two fundamental questions:
Does a fertilized egg have a right to develop into and lead a future life as a person? Anti-abortion folks have already abandoned the absolutist position on this point by making exceptions in cases where the health of the mother or the fetus is at risk or an egg is fertilized as a result of rape or incest, but they otherwise insist on such a right. If there is such a right, however qualified, does it supersede the right of the woman carrying the fertilized egg to lead her life as an autonomous person?
The difficulty of answering these fundamental questions is compounded when individuals and groups moralize and seek to impose their values on others, etc.
It would be good if we could formulate and enact an amendment to the Constitution which answered the fundamental questions once and for all. It’s hard to see a resolution of the issue emerging from the present process. Roe was a nicely reasoned and valiant attempt to resolve it.
17
@jamiebaldwin
A 'fertilized egg' sounds like an attempt to use a different term for the developing human. It's like we try to take a step back from reality to deal with an immediate concern. Perhaps you could understand why so many people, including those who know the unborn baby is a human, agree to exceptions.
Of course, people who follow their convictions to their logical and moral end, whether they object to having nuclear weapons, the death penalty, etc. are likely to be treated as outliers by those who try to deal with the practical problems that are so hard to deal with.
1
@jamiebaldwin
a) If there were to be a Constitutional Amendment
Passed it would overturn Roe and return the
question of abortion to the States.
b) Roe was not nicely reasoned, it was a made up right
as Justice William O. Douglas stated.
2
@bob. A fertilized egg is about as “human” as a person with a flat EEG on a heart and lung machine. Neither has an absolute right to impose on the living. That one has not really begun life while the other is on the way out makes them essentially equivalent in terms of our “obligation” to them. If anything, the person who has lived a life is owed more deference by the living to be cared for.
3
Republicans are staunch defenders of personal liberty fighting against the forces of government overreach.
Except when they are not.
101
I'm sorry, aren't there literally thousands of cases when minorities are subjected to harsh 10+ minimum year sentences because that's what the law states? And many judges will say they don't agree with it, but that's the minimum sentence required by law.
So why is this any different?
4
Of course the GOP is packing the courts with right wing extremists. It has been at the top of their agenda for decades.Just as it will take many years to undo the .damage .done to a variety of civil rights issues that are being gutted by these right ringers.
45
Ms. Greenhouse, I reject your opinion that an opinion column need have an opinion to be a successful opinion column; an opinion column that does not put forth an opinion will, in my opinion, spur opinions to be made upon its effectiveness.
But that's just my opinion.
5
@AJ I for one want to read the opinion of the opinion columnist. That person has studied the issue far more than I. If I don't agree or I want additional information, then I am free to pursue it.
3
@AJ
You've handily outflanked my opinion, no matter what it was.
The Democrats are quite insistent on knowing whether any nominee to the highest court considers Roe v. Wade to have been rightly decided and to have the highest level of protection under stare decisis. Yet republicans are expected to never have mentioned the case to any nominee. That’s why nominees quote Ginsberg when declining to give any hint, wink or nod about their legal viewpoint on cases that might come to the court.
5
@Reader In SC: You're right, as long as conservatives continue to wrongly make this a "moral," issue, which is a religious-based set of ideas and values, rather than an ethical one, the GOP will continue to use it as a hot button, let's divide the country, make people vote out of fear rather than common sense issue. Which is sad, since out Constitution clearly states that we are a nation that separates church from state. Therefore, the issue of abortion is considered an ethical one by law and has been decided and reaffirmed several times by the Supreme Court to be a matter between a woman and her healthcare provider, not the voters who think otherwise.
6
Let's not confuse correlation and causation. This debate isn't between liberals and conservatives. There are liberals who oppose abortion, just as there are conservatives who support a woman's right to choose.
This is a debate about the role of religion in public policy, and it just so happens that religiosity is highly correlated with conservatism.
109
@Scott
I'm not sure what you mean by the word "religiosity" but I take it to mean a very religious quality. I would like to point out that it quite possible to be very liberal, very religious, and very secular all at the same time.
13
@Scott
Here's a standard definition of liberalism: "Liberalism is a political and economic doctrine that emphasizes individual autonomy, equality of opportunity, and the protection of individual rights (primarily to life, liberty, and property), originally against the state and later against both the state and private economic actors, including businesses." That's from Britannica.
So, no, I disagree: it is not possible to be "liberal" in this commonly used sense of the term and to be opposed to a woman's right to reproductive self-determination.
It is possible to be liberal and to oppose abortion as a private matter, for oneself. But when you oppose allowing other women to make that choice, you give up your claim to being liberal and just become a plain old garden-variety pro-forced birth misogynist.
50
@UI We’re now straying into group identity theory – the idea that people belong to one side or another, liberal or conservative, and are required to adjust their position on individual issues match those of their group.
I disagree. “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” (large L and C) represent opposite ends on a continuum of ideas, including such things as the economy and role of government, the environment, gun control, health care, immigration, same-sex marriage, taxes, abortion, etc. It’s very much possible (and I think preferable) for people to make reasoned decisions on individual issues, and then identify with one side of the political spectrum that better represents the bulk of those ideas.
It’s perfectly possible for someone to oppose abortion, while supporting gun control, strong environmental protections, etc. – and thus identify as a liberal.
2
While conservatives believe that at conception, a life is established with rights, there are no conventions in our culture to support that position. For example, if a woman were to tragically have a spontaneous miscarriage, rarely is that followed by standard wake/funeral services. In addition, the IRS tax code does not allow dependent credits until after a child is born; might we start taking exemptions upon conception, surely these would be helpful prenatally? Sadly, the focus on abortion concerns is not met with post natal realities such as support for the needy and affordable child care.
74
@Jeanette
Actually, one state did attempt a bill that included a requirement for a funeral home burial for an aborted fetus. Thankfully this heinous idea went nowhere when it was pointed out that the expense would be higher than the effective long-term contraception methods the poor woman couldn’t afford in the first place.
32
@Jeanette The state of Georgia, under our dubiously elected governor, has just voted in a law that will allow parents to take a tax deduction for a child in the womb. The unintended consequences (including financial) for the state and for society will be momentous.
22
@Jeanette The SCOTUS held in 2014 that life begins at conception is a "deeply held religious belief". Therefore the 'establishment" clause of the First Amendment makes any such proposed law UnConstitutional. Also the "conception" belief is not the religious belief of many religions and different churches in this Country or the vast numbers of non church goers either. Free speech, Freedom of religion, and all first Amendment rights belong to every American.
15
I wonder whether some of those more conservative states that would outlaw abortion if Roe were overruled would criminalize any abortion obtained by one of its citizens. Thus, if a poor woman went across state lines for an abortion and then returned home, would she then be prosecuted? Perhaps the laws won't extend that far; what if a wealthy white woman crossed the state line for an abortion. The state wouldn't want to prosecute her. But prosecutors do have discretion, don't they.
20
@Bernard Bonn
In those "conservative" states, who is more likely to cross state lines to get an abortion -- poor women or middle/upper class with resources? That's why it won't happen.
That's the tacit understanding among many GOP supporters of abortion restrictions: knowing that they will largely fall upon poor people and not on those with means.
59
@Pat
If women are going to be prosecuted for having an abortion will men also be prosecuted since most couples have agreed to the abortion?
7
@Pat
Poor people who tend not to vote for liberal (aka Democratic) politicians.
LG you are right in your response to John Quinn: states cannot override rights deemed fundamental by the Constitution (as interpreted by courts). But John Quinn makes a valid point: the country is so split over abortion, and has been since the 1970s, that a 21st Amendment type of solution may be necessary to hold this country together. I agree the right to get a drink is less important than a woman's right to autonomy over her body. But I don't think there is the political will to fight a second Civil War, this time over the right to choose (though I do understand the slavery analogy some would make). Both sides of the abortion debate believe they defend a fundamental and non negotiable right. It's a winner take all fight at the federal level. Is it better to preserve the integrity of the country and keep the right to choose in some states, by passing a "states choose on abortion" constitutional amendment? I think so.
7
@Cal Prof
You ague that there is value in an effort "to hold this country together." I would argue that now, more than ever, there is not. In fact, perhaps it is a smart tactic to enact stronger Federal protection of abortion choice rights and allow a bunch of retrograde red states to secede, thus strengthening the nation that is left. The core issue is geopolitical and grounded in a 21st century reality of the power of the nation state. In any movement by "blue" America to divorce "red" America, we must bear in mind that we cannot allow the neo-Confederates to maintain any semblance of a nuclear superpower status.
Stepping back, this issue is one that has been manufactured by right-wing ideologues for the purpose of mobilizing conservative voters to support entirely unrelated goals. But having been manufactured, we can take advantage of the split created to end our dependence on an 18th century vision of "democracy."
63
@Pete: I understand the feelings and you make some good points but in the end I can't see it your way. Looking at Brexit, I think it's easy to underestimate the wrenching trauma and logistical nightmare of de-integrating a formerly integrated political entity. And the EU is less knit together than the US! Your mention of nuclear weapons is just one of thousands of issues that would have to be negotiated to create two sovereign nations in the continental US. E pluribus unum is a principle worth preserving.
6
@Cal Prof
There are many differences in opinions and world views between blue and red. Reproductive rights are a stand in for their rejection of modern society and the drive toward freedom, equality and autonomy for all.
Sizeable percentages of Republicans polled reject scientific explanations for observable phenomena (evolution, cosmology, biology, anthropology, geology, climate and environmental science and so on).
Their calls for a 'christian' nation are menacing. This country belongs to us all, not just white evangelicals.
They have been referred to as 'nostalgia' voters who pine for a return to a '1950' type society - an era when many of us (non white, gay, female, non christian) would have been automatically confined to a subordinate role.
Why this group can't live and let live is beyond me, but it won't do any good to try to appease them.
31