Persimmon Alley Press
Persimmon Alley Press
  • About Persimmon Alley Press
  • Books
    • Close Encounters with the Cold War
    • Mother's Century: A Survivor, Her People and Her Times
    • Encounters: Ten Appointments with History
    • Killer Protocols
    • Clean Coal Killers
    • The Killer Trees
    • A Feast of Famine
    • Molly Malice in Alterland
    • Alligator In My Basement
    • Sudden Addiction
    • The Flesh of the Cedarwood
  • Smoke the Dottle
  • Richard's Rants
  • Contact

Rant 664: Thoughts on the Court's Abortion Hearing

12/3/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
​The oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was one of the most revelatory airings of how Supreme Court justices think about arriving at consequential decisions. The questions they asked and the opinions they advanced raised a barrage of issues worth pondering:
 
The legal principle of stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by things decided”), a hifalutin’ way of saying that courts should hesitate before overturning precedents, came up a lot. The conservative justices pointed out that plenty of precedents have been overturned by past Supreme Courts, their prime example being Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation decision that reversed Plessy v. Ferguson, which in 1896 declared that “separate but equal” schools for blacks were just fine. The attorneys arguing against the Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy missed an opportunity to point out that Brown and the other precedent-shattering cases the justices mentioned differ from Dobbs in a very important respect: their reversals righted obvious, consensus wrongs. The original decisions later overturned were by all accounts immoral and unethical. In Dobbs, morality and ethics are a much murkier matter.
 
The “stench” that Justice Sotomayor said would adhere to the Court if it overturned Roe ignores that this partisan reek already exists. One has to be living in a cave without access to outside world media to believe that the Court has not already been irreparably harmed by the awful, often political decisions it has handed down in this century, e.g., Bush v. Gore (deciding the 2000 presidential election…by one vote) Citizens United (legalizing bribery in politics…and announcing that corporations are people, too) Shelby County v. Holder (gutting the Voting Rights Act), Rucho v. Common Cause (declaring that courts have no role in gerrymandering cases because these are political questions [whereas Bush v. Gore and Citizens United were not?]), and District of Columbia v. Heller (a tortured misreading of the Second Amendment). In all these decisions, the Court ignored logic, ethics, data and last but not least, the law.
 
Chief Justice Roberts mistakenly claimed that the fetal viability standard was mere “dicta” (i.e., just an aside) and not essential to the decision in Roe. It’s scary when the top U.S. judge doesn’t accurately frame something critical to what he is about to decide.
 
If Roe goes down, then body autonomy, a central rationale for the constitutionality of abortion, will no longer apply to pregnant women. Compare that to conservative justices in lower federal courts who have recently proclaimed that body autonomy justifies bans on vaccine and mask mandates, an opinion I suspect the Supreme Court’s conservatives also hold.
 
If the Court overturns or substantially limits Roe, which I believe is inevitable, it will be confirming the Republican inference that the sanctity of human life ends at birth. After that it is every man and woman for him/herself.
 
Republican legislators rail against abortion while simultaneously opposing any assistance to poor families who strain financially to support their children. They consistently vote against any proposal that would help those families. If conservatives believe that material circumstances prompt women to terminate a pregnancy, they need to do something to ease them. Yet they roadblock universal health insurance coverage, paid family leave, a livable wage and child care tax credits. Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
 
Justice Barrett’s solution, offered from the bench: Women could either leave unwanted newborns at the nearest police precinct or fire station, or give them up for adoption!
 
Overturning Roe v. Wade will not result in significantly fewer abortions. Restricting access to the procedure will mean fewer legal, safe abortions. Women of means will simply travel to places where they can safely terminate their pregnancies. Poor women will be forced to return to the back alley and coat hanger era.
 
Dick Hermann
December 3, 2021

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Author

    Richard Hermann is the author of thirteen books, including Encounters: Ten Appointments with History and, most recently, Mother's Century: A Survivor, Her People and Her Times. Soon to be released is his upcoming Close Encounters with the Cold War, a personal reflection on growing up in the nuclear age. He is a former law professor and entrepreneur, and the founder and president of Federal Reports, Inc., a legal information and consulting firm that was sold in 2007. He has degrees from Yale University, the New School University, Cornell Law School and the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s School. He lives with his wife, Anne, and extraordinary dog, Barkley, in Arlington, Virginia and Canandaigua, New York.

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed