Posted on June 28, 2022
Like a thunderbolt in the summer sky in the United States, the symbolic judgment that made abortion a “constitutional right” was overturned. Roy v. Wade (1973), later Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For the judges, it is “To the people and elected representatives” To frame the practice of abortion, thus returning the ball to the politician.
Claiming that abortion is not protected by the constitution is tantamount to giving the member states of the union the right to judge its legitimacy and scope without the federal government having a say in the matter. It is therefore a decision that, in addition to directly affecting the question of abortion, restores the limits of judicial authority and the political rights of states within American federalism.
Legal culture war
For the progressive camp, it is an unprecedented snub and a harbinger of greater questioning of lawsuits affecting the rights of women and minorities. For conservatives, this is a victory they have been waiting for for almost 50 years. The extreme political polarization between Democrats and Republicans alone will not end with the abolition of Rowe, the exact opposite.
Observed as lawyer Ilya Somin BecauseThe culture war has only changed gears:
Just as most conservatives have never acknowledged the legitimacy of row vs.. Wade and his fifty-year struggle to overthrow him, the vast majority of progressives are less likely to accept Dobbs’ rule and would be happy to overthrow him at the first opportunity. This is evident from the reaction of the liberal left to the Dobbs regime since its enactment, as well as the evolution of the abortion issue over the past few decades. In this constitutional debate, neither side is willing to give too much credibility to the other party’s legitimacy.
Without going into the technical details, the legal basis of Roe v. Wade has always drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. For conservatives, he has testified to the “leftist” political flow of the U.S. Supreme Court. 14 is based on a liberal – and especially vague – interpretatione And 9e Amendments to the Constitution, judges have assumed the right to abortion from the greater right to privacy (Privacy), Included himself in the Griswold judgment of 1965.
What is the constitutional right to abortion?
For a conservative jurist like Robert Bork, it bypasses the central question of the presence of law in the constitutional text, which is tantamount to giving the court the power to create new rights rather than directly elected institutions by the people. American. So the moral question of abortion is combined with a question related to the limitations of the power of the court, which, from a democratic point of view, is accused of wanting to impose a government of progressive-inspired judges instead of rallies.
According to Christopher Caldwell, the level of legal protection provided by the courts was particularly weak for those who made legal abortion an essential element of modern freedom. The legal justification of the court was the opinion of only one judge, the basis of which could be overturned at any time. The only way to “protect” this national right can only go through politics, which is to create a specially motivated pro-choice camp capable of defending the decision. Like It came from the legislature branch.
Rowe’s withdrawal has fueled controversy among progressives and conservatives. American liberals and libertarians are equally divided on the basics of abortion. It is possible to have an overview in its column BecauseFlagship Magazine of Independence in the United States.
On the one hand, Liz Wolf sees this as a victory for pro-life libertarians: “Such a move would not stop abortions, but it would almost certainly reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States each year.” He added that, contrary to Democrats’ fears, there was no question of banning abortion: “In Rowe and Casey, the court has guaranteed women the right to abortion and tried to reduce the‘ unwanted burden ’that could interfere with it. Reversing these rulings would not result in a nationwide ban on abortion, but would send the matter to the state legislature. The result will be a patchwork of abortion laws by state. A
From a preferential perspective, Nick Gillespie fears that increasing fetal protection will increase a woman’s sexual surveillance: “If life actually begins during pregnancy, the state has a responsibility to protect all zygotes (fertilized eggs), blastocysts (week-old zygotes) and embryos (zygotes implanted in the uterine wall). From a liberal perspective, the impact of such a change is surprising. This is a recipe for government, not for limited government, which must monitor and track all possible breeding activities in the name of protecting life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. A
How do you get out of the position battle between conservatives and progressives over abortion?
According to Ilya Somin, the United States should seek a broad consensus on this issue, as some European countries have:
“The 14-week limit in France and Germany is a good example of this. If American public opinion reaches the same consensus, it will seldom care about the details of the law on abortion cases, unless it stands in the way of the biased principles of that consensus. Alternatively, the legal elite can come to a consensus on a constitutional approach that will clearly solve the problem of abortion in one way or another. A