Roe v. Wade Impact on Civil Rights and Personal Freedoms
Hello, friends. A few days ago, my newsletter was completed (with a different introduction) and was ready to publish. Then a bombshell dropped, or shall I say leaked, from the sky and disrupted society as we know it. If the draft opinion leaked from the Supreme Court (overturning Roe v Wade) holds true, the debate over reproductive rights will be just one domino or slice of the pie of freedom we will actually lose. Our darkest days may be ahead.
Let me tell you why.
Our American legal system follows the doctrine of stare decisis, obliging judges to make rulings based on previous judicial decisions on the same subject - known as precedent. Several Supreme Court decisions set precedent for Roe, which has set precedent for many others. If Roe v Wade gets overturned, it rolls back 50 years of jurisprudence on privacy rights. The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the Constitution's amendments guarantee our right to privacy: simply, the right not to have one's personal matters disclosed or publicized; the right to be left alone; and the right against undue government intrusion into fundamental personal issues and decisions.
If the final majority opinion states that reproductive freedom is not protected by the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause (which protects many rights not mentioned in the Constitution), then it means that all subsequent decisions that rest on Roe as precedent can be called into question. Regressively, it may also suggest that the Constitution does not protect the right to privacy, which means all prior related decisions can also be called into question. This is dangerous. I've made a list for you of liberties at risk:
Right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965): Protects the ability of married couples to buy contraceptives without government restriction.
Right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015): Protects and legalizes the right to marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation.
Right to learn languages (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923): Protects families to decide for themselves if they want their children to learn a language other than English. This could open the door for racist state legislatures to try to outlaw learning their family's languages.
Right to not be forcibly sterilized (Skinner v Oklahoma, 1942): Protected criminals from forced sterilizations (i.e. vasectomy for males; and salpingectomy for females).
Right to private sexual decisions (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003): Protects against punishment for committing sodomy; in other words, against criminalizing homosexuality.
Right to sexual expression and sex education (Stanley v Georgia, 1969): Protects the free and unimpeded acquisition of facts and knowledge, regardless of their apparent social value (with exception of child pornography).
Right to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1968): Protects against state laws banning interracial marriages. This is my blended family. We, along with millions of others, would be in danger:
Finally, on abortion, you've heard me say this before: women are not public property. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. But, more importantly,restricting abortion does not decrease the rate of abortion- rather increases the number of people who die trying to get one by +21%. Don't force women to birth children that society won't help support. Let us instead work tore-imagine our social structuresto ensure children are born into a world with equal pay, food security, rent security, homes that are affordable, free health care (e.g. giving birth should be free), well-funded schools, an abundance of family leave, free baby care (e.g. lactation consultants, diapers, formula), affordable childcare, and so much more.
P.S.: ironically, the Court opted to protect theprivacyof the Plaintiff in that case (real name Norma McCorvey), by assigning her the pseudonymJane Roe.