Logic and Dobbs vs Jackson WHO and Roe vs Wade

This page is not the usual subject matter of this website, but I consider that it marks such a pivotal point in human history that it is worth taking a logical look at the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a decision which overturned the 1973 decision of the nominally same Court in Roe vs Wade.

 

Americans need to wake up, and fast, and realize that the creeping erosion of their rights and their democracy has reached a critical pivotal tipping point and that action needs to be taken - now.

 

The decision of the Supreme Court in its overthrowing of Roe Vs Wade logically implicates two possible scenarios:

1. The Court cannot or will not make a decision as to the rights of a fertilized egg/fetus within the time-frame of a pregnancy or
2. The Court’s decision is that a fertilized egg/fetus had rights that override those of the woman that it resides in from the moment of fertilization.

Considering the first option, we can note that the Court has decided that any regulation of prohibition of abortion is to be decided by the “people and their elected representatives”. We can also note that the Court considers the matters in question to be difficult and complex. But if the Court will not or cannot make a decision on the difficult and complex matter of the constitutional rights of a fertilized egg/fetus, but at the same time the Court considers that individual states can manage to do so, then what is the purpose of the Court in relation to constitutional rights? If individual states are able to decide the matter in difficult and complex cases, then they must also be able to decide all cases.

 

Noting that it could be the case that the Court did not make a decision that questions its own ability or commitment to decide matters of constitutional rights, we move on to the second option.

 

The only difference between a woman having something done to her own body to effect an abortion and another person having something done to their body, such as ingesting medication or undergoing surgery, is the fact that the woman has a fertilized egg/fetus in her body. No-one suggests that persons do not have the right to have, for example, to ingest a headache tablet, or undergo plastic surgery, or have dental treatment. (Footnote: The decision argues that “legitimate state interests” can override an individual’s liberty to do what they wish with their own body - that if other persons deem an operation to be a “barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession” then, according to the Supreme Court, that can be such a “legitimate state interest”. One might as well suggest that according to that argument people should be prohibited from undergoing plastic surgery.)

 

Hence the decision of the Court that a woman does not have such a right immediately upon fertilization of one of her eggs is a decision that the fertilized egg/fetus has overridden that right, in other words that a fertilized egg/fetus has rights that the Court deems to be constitutional rights that cancel the right of the woman to have certain things done to her own body.

 

Now, given that this is in fact the decision of the Court, then by the very fact that the Court has stated that it is up to the “people and their elected representatives”, the Court is making the extraordinary decision that while they deem the fertilized egg/fetus to have a constitutional right to continued existence, the Court specifically states that it takes no interest in the question of whether that right is respected and protected - that it is up to the government of an individual state to choose whether to do so.

 

This really is quite astonishing. Imagine the same scenario, except that the Court decides that, rather than a fertilized egg/fetus, birthed people of a certain group have a right to life, but it would be up to individual states to decide whether or not they actually have that right in practice, that is, it would be up to the individual state either to take steps to try to protect that right, or else completely ignore any attack on that right to life.

 

In summary, either way the Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is not a body that is fit to make rulings that affect millions of American citizens. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that it will act further in the same vein.

 

Are Americans really going to sit idly by and watch as the toxic legacy of the past few years continues to destroy their rights? Americans need to act now before any vestiges of remaining democracy in the USA are lost forever.

 

Some of the members of this Supreme Court, who should be persons that demonstrate an ethos that is above any reproach, instead have unashamedly taken actions that they swore they would not. Such depravity and callous lack of any integrity must not go unpunished. Are Americans really going to simply watch while these reprehensible individuals continue to sit on the Court for years and years and trample all over the rights of American citizens?

 

Make no mistake, what is happening here is startlingly similar to what happened in 1930s Germany, where power was gradually taken over by a minority while others complained and did nothing until it was too late for any simple remedy.

 

When your opponent continues to ignore the rules, there comes a point where you also have to break the rules to restore the balance. If the opponent continues to fight without gloves, then you should fight back in the same manner.

 

The obvious recourse here is termination of such persons’ occupancy of the Court by whatever means necessary; we will see whether the pen that writes the Court’s judgment is mightier than the sword.

 

I sincerely hope that I do not have to revisit this in a few years time and say “I told you so.”

Footnotes: