Pulling the Trigger: Abortion Post Roe v. Wade

On Friday, June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which may ultimately prove to be as decisive as the first volley fired at Concord and Lexington in April 1775 or the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. The court, by a five to four decision along ideological lines, voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has stood since 1973, giving women the right to end a unwanted pregnancy.  

A majority of Americans, 54% to 28%, regarded the court's decision a mistake equivalent to Citizens United and further demonstrated the folly of lifetime appointments and the disconnect it creates with the American People, technology and society.  In another poll, 70% of the respondents said that a woman's decision to get an abortion should be private matter between a woman and her doctor.

The nearly 50 year old decision was based on the 14th amendment (and to a lesser extension, the 9th amendment which serves as a "catch all" amendment) and was based on the issue of privacy.  These same laws were used to guarantee the rights and citizenship of former slaves because of its "citizenship clause". It  is also cited to justify citizenship for so-called "anchor babies". That is, children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.   

The 14th amendment was used in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education which dealt with racial discrimination under its Equal Protection Clause, and in 2015, it was used to strike down state laws opposing mixed race and same sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, each state regulated their own abortion laws. Some states were fairly liberal, essentially allowing abortions on demand, while others restricted it to cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother was endangered or if something catastrophic was wrong with the child which would affect its quality of life, while some prohibited it altogether.

In states where there were restrictions, it also meant that those with the financial wherewithal could afford to obtain a relatively safe abortion while the working class and poor were often forced to seek out "back alley" procedures which were typically unsafe and unsanitary (in some cases, women crossed or were smuggled into Mexico for the illegal procedure) and provided nothing for pain.. 

It wasn't unusual  for a woman to be physically injured during the procedure, leaving them with internal injuries, infections like sepsis, sterile, or dead.

Some women purchased certain drugs, which caused violent cramps, bleeding, and vomiting, from questionable sources to end their unwanted pregnancies. These drugs could be just as deadly.  Roe v. Wade was intended to end these procedures and provide safe alternatives.

The decision ending Roe v. Wade, will again put the decision back into the hands of the states in what's known as "trigger laws".  In 26 states (including Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri ), these laws will take effect immediately, while in others there is a waiting period ranging from five to 30 days. In a few states, the laws must be reviewed and amended if necessary before taking effect (it's worth nothing that in some states, their abortion laws date back to the early 1930's).

The ending of Roe v. Wade marks another serious break in the United States, which is already deeply divided. Approximately 2/3 of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. 58% of those polled said they hoped their state would enact more progressive abortion laws, while 51% wanted their state to become a "safe haven" for women seeking an abortion.

Thus, the Supreme Court has now joined Congress and the Presidency in disregarding the opinions of the majority of the American People. Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court has a 25% approval rating?  As an aside, the approval rating of Congress is a dismal 20% (it was a record low of 18% in May 2022) while Biden's is currently just 38% (VP Kamala Harris has a rating of 35%).  

As a result of the Roe decision, the approval rating for the Supreme Court dropped from 40% to 25% among Independents (America's largest political bloc), from 30% to 13% among Democrats, and yet it actually rose among Republicans from 37% to 39%.

It's worth nothing that the court's decision, which many consider to be a women's issue, came down primarily along ideological lines with the five conservative justices (four men and one woman) voting to undo Roe v. Wade while the four liberal justices, which  included two women, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissenting ( it's worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas is considered the most conservative while Sonia Sotomayor is the most liberal).  

In addition, it should be pointed out that Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed by President Obama.  Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the court's majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas were appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush. President Trump appointed three— Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Many conservatives, notably among the Far Right, considered this to be a moral, and therefore, a religious issue more so than a ideological one. Their argument was that abortion, regardless of the circumstances to be morally wrong, and thus in conflict with their religious beliefs.

There may be a grain of truth in this. The court consists of six Catholics, one Protestant, and two Jews. The lone Protestant, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but converted to "Catholic-lite" Episcopalianism. Justice Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent and the most liberal justice, has said that she considers herself more of a "cultural Catholic" than practicing Catholic. 

Nevertheless, the Vatican has stated that any politician or judge who supported abortion, which is banned by Canon Law, could be refused communion or possibly even excommunication. Apparently five of the Catholic justices weren't taking any chances.

The Left, on the other hand, saw Roe v. Wade more of a economic and social issue which provided women with the control over their body and by being a federal law, made abortion legal, affordable, and providing a degree of safety as well as privacy.

Of course, some states, with considerable pressure from conservative Right to Life groups, attempted to hamstring the federal law by requiring a waiting period, mandatory pre-procedure counseling, and viewing images of the fetus before being allowed to proceed with the procedure.  

So, what does this all mean? Since 1973, there has been an estimated 63 million abortions performed in the United States. The National Right to Life Committee has claimed that for every 1000 live births, there are 193 abortions. Yet contrary to popular opinion, most of these were not "on demand" forms of birth control as some have alleged.

The renown Guttmacher Institute conducted an intensive study of why women had abortions found that 74% said having a child at that time would interfere with their work, education, or ability to take of a dependent. 73% cited economic reasons while 48% didn't want to try to raise a child on their own. 4 in 10 said they were done with their childbearing and didn't want any more children while 1/3 admitted that they weren't emotionally ready to have child yet.

With Roe v. Wade becoming law in 1973, the number of adoptions available significantly decreased, especially among middle and upper class white women. Adoptions rose from 91,000 in 1957 to 175,000 by 1970. But by 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade, they had dropped to 130,000 and continued to drop.

In the 1970's, 9% of single women surrendered their children to adoption. By the 1980's, that figure had dropped to 2% of single females giving their children up for adoption, which further dropped to 1% by the 1990's and on.  It's also worth noting that most of the women interviewed stated that it was less emotionally stressful to have an abortion than it was giving up their child for adoption.

Our America of 2022 is not the same America of the 1970's. There will likely be more states willing to allow abortions, at least at some level, than there was the years prior to Roe v. Wade. There are more conception options available, such as the "morning after pill", not to mention dozens of birth control devices and reversible procedures available. If you are going to be sexual active, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and use some form of protection. There's now no longer any excuse not to.

However, it's not really about birth control or even abortions is it? It comes down to who has the final say over one's own body---the individual? The state? Or is it some group attempting to impose its religious and moral values onto others? That, in my opinion, is what the argument has really been about all along.

With the undoing of Roe v. Wade, should there now be an attempt to expand this reversal of privacy and individual choice to include birth control (as some religious groups have promised to do since they believe all forms of birth control are "immoral"), or attempt to apply it to interracial or same sex partnerships and marriages (which some oppose for the same reason), I think you will see the final tear in this nation's fabric.

It's ironic that at the same time, we are seeing efforts by the Left to prohibit or further restrict gun ownership, which also comes down to a matter of privacy, personal choice, and self-protection under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Somehow I can't see conservatives standing by and allowing it to happen, and yet isn't turnabout seen as "fair play"?    

I struggle with abortion for several reasons, least of all depriving a healthy infant the wonders of life (none of those reasons involve religion by the way).  However, I believe there are exceptions, such as rape, incest, the endangerment of the mother's life, or something catastrophic which would seriously impair the child's quality of life. I can't condone late term abortions either unless, again, the mother's life is endangered or the child's quality of life is impacted.

But, to be clear,  I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to tell anyone, especially a stranger whose circumstances I know nothing about or someone of the opposite gender, what they can or can't do with their body, regardless of whether I agree or not (otherwise, it follows that women should be able to require men to get vasectomies for instance). I will, of course, be more than happy to give my opinion should they ask!

 Lastly, I don't believe any individual, group, or religious institution has the right to impose their religious beliefs or ideas of morality onto anyone else, particularly when they are neither married or have children. That's no different than what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan. 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

 What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean? Supreme Court decision's implications

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

The Religion of the Supreme Court Justices

The political leanings  of the Supreme Court justices

Trigger Law

Guttmacher Institute: Reasons U.S. women have abortions

Why So Many Women Chose Abortions Over Adoptions

New poll finds Americans oppose striking down Roe v. Wade bya 2 to 1 margin

The New England Journal of Medicine: Perilous Politics: Morbidityand Mortality in the Pre-Roe Era

A World of the Left or of the Right?

I receive dozens, if not more, emails daily from various groups outlining their own spin of some event (like the "war on women" or some "anti-worker" bill). It never ceases to amaze me as to how many there are to spin an issue. I've often wondered what it would be like if what they said was the literal truth. Think about it for a moment. What if Democrats really were Communist-loving Leftist after your guns? How far do you think they'd really get? Are the Democrats seriously out to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace it with Das Kapital? Or that there is a secret cabal in some dark dingy room under the Pentagon hovering over a well worn copy of "Mein Kampf", hatching their nefarious plans to strangle workers' rights, to force "working families" into servitude. Are the Republicans really out to wage a "war against women"? I can't imagine a successful outcome to that conflict when they have to explain it to their wives and girlfriends! The absurdity is mindboggling. But, still, I confess to getting a kick at watching how one "news" network will spin one series of events, and then flip the channel to see how the other "news" network spins the same issue. Sometimes it's like they're talking about completely different issues (and occasionally, like whatever happened took place in an alternative reality). This got me to thinking (always dangerous, I know). What would our life be if the Right or Left totally won the ideological battle? Complete and utter annihilation of the other side. What would it be like? If you were a Conservative, I suspect there would be a very small federal government. States would dominate. If the majority of them agreed that a specific policy worked, it would be adopted at the national level. There would be few, if any restrictions on business. Survival of fittest would be the first (and only) rule of business. Those that outperformed their competition, would prevail. Those which didn't would be swept away into the dustbin of history (or to be more capitalistic, simply recycled). There would be no regulations for air, water, or for that matter, labor. Certainly, unions, if they even existed, would be near impotent while existing labor laws would be abolished. There would exist a almost vigilante mentality when it came to crime, so there wouldn't be much need for prison. Justice would be swift and for sure. In fact, carrying firearms openly would be common place, so robberies, carjacking, and rapes may be all but non-existent. Drugs, on the other hand, would largely be legal since government would have no right to control what you did to yourself so long as one else was affected. Conservatives would demand prayer in school. A good old fashioned fundamentalist Christian "fire and brimstone" prayer. Students would be required to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance, "under God" and everyone else's eyes. There would be no discipline issues. Butt whoopings would be the order of the day for any outbursts or misbehavior. The school curriculums would be tightly regimented with little diversity or thought to conflict with Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. The role of education would be to instill discipline, respect for authority, and pride of citizenship in the future worker bees of Cubicle America. Woe be to the student who failed to keep up since there would be no public safety net. Charity would indeed start at home, assuming you could afford one. With no government regulations, buyers of everything from cars to dishwashers to homes and service repairers be aware! Banks and financial companies would be free to charge as they please, so to the savvy buyers goes the unspoiled (especially since there would likely be no FDA to monitor food quality). Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and workers compensation wouldn't exist since each would be responsible for their own retirement. Marriages may be as much a matter of mutual economic assistance as love, but one thing for certain, it would be hetro. Diversity would be more a matter of recipes than religion or ethnic heritage since immigration would be curtailed to critical shortages only, and then, limited to those willing to adapt culturally and linguistically. Their religious practices may be allowed, but only at the consent of the state. Orthodoxy of faith will be seen as a sure sign of God's blessing on this nation. Doubtless, the IRS would not exist and neither would the departments of Education, EPA, or Commerce. Taxes would be based on either consumption or a flat tax with states allocating a portion to the federal government based a vote by the citizens. Education and environment have been dealt with. Commerce between states would be based on mutual cooperation and consent, with an occasional "turf dispute" arising from time to time (probably decided by the outcome of a college football bowl game). So, there you have a snippet if the Conservative Cause prevails. Now, what if the Left emerges victorious? In the world of Left, things would be much different. we would have very little to worry ourselves about since the federal government would manage every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave (indeed, even before then, since would-be moms would be mandated to maintain prescribed diets and health regimens in order to insure a healthy birth for the proud parent State-to-be), and if you did find yourself worrying about your place in New World Order, then worry no more since our comprehensive healthcare system would provide you--free of charge---mental healthcare coverage (provided you are not over age 55, in which case, you no longer qualify). Yes, we would enjoy the benefits of an all caring and encompassing social system which promotes everything from the type of cooking oils you may use to how many hours of exercise per day you will undertake to the new low emission high mileage hybrid you drive (provided, of course, you have paid your monthly public road use fee), or you can stay at home in your hydro/solar powered home. If you're lucky, you may have enough energy usage coupons saved up to purchase a air quality permit for that annual May 1st cookout (the Fourth of July cookout having been outlawed due to its obvious nationalist implications). Naturally, all meals will be organic; having used the latest natural based chemically enhanced growing agents available and grown in the most modern commercial hothouses. For the after meal clean up, all utensils and most plates are biodegradable while others are cleaned using your solar heated steam faucet (which sterilizes and saves water at the same time; the water is recycled for flushing). Of course, this can be confusing, so there will be ample government monitoring stations available to help assist you in the event you should have any questions, or periodically forget to comply. Instead of a sovereign nation, America would exist as territorial designation only since nations as such no longer exists. Borders would be open. Each territory will be administered by an agency under overall control of the United Nations. Our electronic technology would allow complete and instant translations of everything, from commercials to road signs. Gone will be cash. Every transactions will be electronic. In addition to the government monitoring stations, government approved assistance is only an app away on every electronic devise. Crime too is a thing of the past. Starting from birth (pre-birth actually), everyone is monitored for an deviant behavior. What can't be corrected through early "time out" or discussing anger issues, can easily be addressed using current psycho-drug therapy. After all, since one doesn't "naturally" choose to be angry, there is no need to accept blame for its actions is there? Corporations too would cease to exist. What were once formerly businesses, would now be credit earning entities, controlled by and for the territorial governing agency which oversees the administration of, well, everything. Most individuals would continue to seeking to maximize their credits, however, everyone will be guaranteed to minimum monthly income in addition to available programs for housing, food, and of course, healthcare. With a 75% tax rate, most will choose to remain part time employees. This leaves ample time to enjoy the pristine environment, thanks to mandated pollution control. However, one may not step on grassy areas; use water found in open areas or in any other way, impact directly or indirectly the naturally existing environment. Otherwise, have a beautiful day. And while all cultures as welcomed and accepted, some restrictions will remain such as the prohibition of "honor murders" (there are some things which are inexcusable, even to the Left). Marriage will be open...really open...and no longer restricted by gender. People will be allowed to marry whomever or whatever they choose, and there will be no prohibition to the number of concurrent spouses or "significant others" one may have. Abortions will remain legal with no restrictions on age and no parental consent required given the personal and private nature of the matter. Schools will permit open curriculums, with each student being allowed to take whatever course they enjoy and excel it (though there will be no grades; only positive reinforcement) and employment upon completion of a minimum number of courses is guaranteed. There will be constructs with respect to one's religion (or lack thereof). Drugs will be decriminalized, though largely unavailable due to the consumption and recreation taxes (which may be waived with a government issued prescription). Sports will largely remain the same, but there will be no final scores kept since everyone wins by simply participating. And there you have it. What life would be like if all the emails I receive from the Left and Right played out. Kinda makes Donley Kong looks sensible doesn't it? We Can All Do Better by Bill Bradley 155 pages I've always respected Senator Bill Bradley. Throughout his career, he always seemed to be one of the few good guys in Washington. Of course, every time a current or former politician or political pundit writes a book, I try to maintain a little healthy skepticism. I'm always concerned that it's going to be another "gotcha" book. More than a few seem to be trying to impress themselves with their name dropping or playing some partisan 'blame game". I was impressed, however, with this book. First, it wasn't a "gotcha" book. There was finger pointing to be sure, but it was deliberate and deserving as a book of this type should be. Senator Bradley does an excellent job in explaining to the reader the core reasons for the failure of Washington to solve our problems. It's clear from the outset that the Senator is addressing ordinary citizens not the usual politicos attracted to similar books, nor is he writing to tout his achievements, which are impressive in themselves and well deserved. This is a book meant to explain and to inspire action, which it accomplishes and much more. At the heart of the book is the failure of our elected leader to move beyond the pettiness of partisan politics to reach a consensus that benefits the general public. Part of this failure is that the system itself has been corrupted by both parties to prevent change while practically institutionalizing the perpetual campaign. Blame is carefully crafted and spun as fine as fool's gold is deceiving. There was a time when, despite political ideology, individuals from both parties came together at the end of the day to reach a common consensus. America's interest came first. Not anymore. Today, it's lobbyists and Super PACS who are the play makers, and it's in dollars raised that the political game is scored while the American voter looks on in mesmerizing disbelief like watching a slow motion crash, except this crash is that of his world and everything he took for granted. What I enjoyed, and appreciated the most as a concerned citizen, was the Senator's explanation and history of the issues and his realistic non-partisan formula for changing the status quo. To many similar books offer "pie in the sky" solutions or blames this party or the other. Senator Bradley, while a Democrat, was equally critical of his own party as he was the Republicans. But it was his suggestions, drawn from his years of experience couple with a working class common sense, which sets this book apart. If you're concerned about America and you're looking for an explanation of how we got where we are and what we can do about it, then "We Can All Do Better" by Senator Bill Bradley is the book for you. America is in serious trouble. We have too many pundits trying to tell us who to blame. What we are sorely lacking are solutions. This book is good start.

Rubber Soul: The Pope Approves Condoms

Good news everybody! The Pope has approved condoms! Wait a minute. The Pope has approved condoms? Are you kidding me? Since when does the Pontiff have a say in whether or not you use condoms? Well, if you’re Catholic, apparently he gets to decide about not just religious matters, but your sex life too. This is coming from a guy who’s not married; has no children (theoretically); and it’s questionable as to whether or not he’s ever been on a date right? We know, however, that he was a member of the Hitler Youth during WWII, so perhaps old habits are hard to die after all. Ok, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let’s look at what the Pope really said about condom use.

Pope Benedict XVI said on November 20, 2010 that the use of condoms in certain cases was permissible, such as by prostitutes with HIV. However, it was still a “sin” in the eyes of the Church. While some saw the announcement as a step closer to everyday reality regarding human sexuality, Pope Benedict really wasn’t saying anything new; just saying in a different way. The Church forbids the use of condoms as form of birth control. It is the Catholic Church’s official line that anything short of abstinence was in conflict with Church policy as a violation of “God’s laws”, even when lives were at stake, such as in the case of AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. Although similar statements have been made by Vatican officials in the past, the fact that this statement was made by the head of the 1.166 billion member Catholic Church gave it more authority.

The comment by Pope Benedict is but one in an upcoming book by German journalist Peter Seewald entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. The book came about as the result of a series of conversations with the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Seewald. The 83 year old “Panzer Cardinal” as he was formerly known, served as the hard-line doctorial watchdog for the popular John Paul II before becoming Pope in April of 2005. As youth, he served in the Hitler Youth from 1941 through 1945 (though he and his family were opponents to Nazism; believing that it counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church). Other topics covered in the book are the Pope’s opposition to ordination of women as being against the teachings of Jesus; mandatory celibacy of priests (I presume this includes child molestation too); as well as a prohibition on the teachings of Liberation Theology.

On the subject of condom use, the Pontiff said “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility” (in the Italian edition, “male sex worker” is changed to “female sex worker”). On the issue of AIDS in Africa, which has been rampant for decades, the Pope rejected not just the use of condoms, but stated that the use of condoms would “increase the problem”.

There is an estimated 22.5 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV and AIDS while North Africa and the Middle East has just over 460,000. South America currently has 1.4 million people infected. Asia has an estimated 4.5 million infected. In 2009 alone, some 1.6 million people became infected (mostly in Africa), of which 370,000 were children. The disease, which thus far has no known cure, left 1.8 million dead just in 2009 alone, and 16.6 million AIDS related orphans (http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm and http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm).

On the issue of pregnancies, an estimated 38% were unwanted or unplanned. Worldwide, that’s some 80 million pregnancies and 42 million induced abortions a year. The cost of providing some form of contraceptive to the approximately 201 million worldwide at risk is believed to be around US $3.9 billion dollars per year. While a steep number, it would reduce the costs of unwanted pregnancies by $52 million dollars; prevent 1.5 maternal and child deaths annually; cut abortions by 64%; and reduce pregnancy related illnesses by 27 million lives at cost of $144 per individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy, http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj9(2)/12.pdf and http://www.populationalert.org/).

You should know that I’m not Catholic. I did attend a Catholic undergraduate and graduate school. I am very familiar with Catholic dogma, and I have many close friends who are Catholic. Now, with that said, here's my take on the Pontiff's remarks cocerning condom usage.

In 2009, treatment of AIDS costs approximate $25 billion annually worldwide (http://www.avert.org/universal-access.htm) and costs of providing some form of contraceptive to be nearing 17 billion dollars annually (http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1937516/global_contraceptives_market_is_projected_to_reach_us172_billion_by/). That’s just the dollars. The “sense” part is no less as high. It’s the cost of a human life. In poor countries with little medical treatment available, it’s a death sentence. It effects education; food production; infrastructure; and creates social and economic stability in nations which are known for their inept and corrupt governments. The costs of unwanted pregnancies be it from unplanned pregnancies or from rape, in the United States alone is some $7 billions dollars. Globally, that figure reaches an estimated $21 billion dollars. Aside from the financial costs, additional “costs” include added stress on the social infrastructure as women (mostly teenage girls with little or nor education or job skills) turn to taxpayer assistance programs (if they even exist) such as taxpayer based healthcare, resulting in increased taxes; potential increases in crimes rates; an increase of poorly educated women into low paying jobs; an increase in the overall poverty rate; increases in the number of teenage suicides; increases in the number of abortions (either clinical or self-induced, which can maim or cause unintended death).

This, in my option, is what the Pope is espousing by denying the use of contraceptives. That an institution whose leadership is made up of older unmarried males, who has no practical concept of spousal love or family has magnanimously agreed to permit the use of condoms among prostitutes of all people is absurd to the point of ignorance; perhaps even criminal. It is unconceivable that a religious leader would condemn his flock to misery, poverty and almost certain death. Yes, abstinence is the best option to avoid HIVS, AIDS, the spread of STDS, and unwanted pregnancies, but it overlooks human nature. We are sexual animals. God gave us sex, not just for procreation, but as a physical and emotional expression of connecting with another human being, be it for love or enjoyment and that, my friends, is no sin.


New Radio Show!

Hey folks, Michael Lewis, the Kentucky President of Independent (Kentuckyhttp://independentkentucky.com/) and I will be hosting our own internet radio show starting December 5, 2010 starting at 2:00 PM EST. Our show will be called “Issues First”. We will be examining some of the issues affecting average working folks like you and I from a non-partisan perspective. You can tune in at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/independent-kentucky/2010/12/05/issues-first. I hope you’ll join us, and of course, we’d love to hear from you too!