The discussion about women’s rights to abortion and the issue of the constitutional support of this right has been relevant for the last several decades. The current situation around the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade became the center of debate in American society. According to a draft judgment covered by Politico, the US supreme court has reportedly decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. This historic decision legalized abortion in America on a national level. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established the legal right to abortion, is annulled, as is the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which substantially upheld that right (Gerstein and Ward). The decision concerns women’s rights and harms the idea of the constitutional establishment of social norms due to Alito’s expressions and explanations.
The first issue with the decision is that there was a breach in secrecy that presented a high level of danger to the potential perception of the act and the Court itself. It is proved by the fact that all parties in the abortion debate were bracing for the decision after Alito’s draft majority decision was made public, marking an unusual breach of Supreme Court tradition and confidentiality surrounding its proceedings. Additionally, since the oral arguments in December suggested that the court was leaning toward supporting the Mississippi legislation, there has been much speculation about the impending judgment (Gerstein and Ward). This particular speculation not only harmed the perception of the news by the public but also discredited the Court’s trust and support in the question. Moreover, regarding one of its most important decisions in decades that is certain to exacerbate America’s severe political divisions, the supreme court refused to confirm what would have been the most significant security violation in its history. Images shared on social media after the Politico report surfaced showed a group of demonstrators assembling outside the supreme court.
However, if approved as anticipated, the ruling would support Mississippi in a case of great significance involving its attempt to outlaw the majority of abortions performed after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That would end the 50-year national protection of women’s rights guarantee and give each state the option of restricting or outlawing abortion. In the South and the Midwest, where nearly half of the states are expected to enact sweeping abortion prohibitions quickly, it is most likely that the overturning of Roe will almost immediately result in tighter restrictions on access to abortion (Gerstein and Ward). The procedure is still legally permissible in any state. Additionally, in this concern, there is a question conservative Justice Clarence Thomas encouraged the court to re-evaluate earlier rules safeguarding the right to contraceptives, legalizing gay marriage nationally in a concurring statement that sparked concerns the justices would pull back other rights.
The connection with the support of other rights is the other aspect of the decision concerns. The prohibition of abortion can awaken the debate on other rights and legislations with several opposite supporting groups in society and political backgrounds. The conservative justice’s text included a 31-page attachment documenting laws established to prohibit abortion during that time. According to Alito, the prohibition of abortion under the threat of criminal punishment has existed continuously since the beginning of the typical law period up to 1973 (Gerstein and Ward). In his draft, Alito makes the case that so-called unenumerated rights, guaranteed by the Constitution but not explicitly listed, must be deeply ingrained in American culture. This method of reasoning appears to conflict with several of the court’s most recent judgments, including those supporting LGBT rights. In his draft opinion, Alito dismisses the notion that abortion restrictions result from women’s oppression in American culture. However, concerning other women’s rights, he claimed that women possess political and electoral power. Women are constantly more likely than men to register to vote, cast votes, and participate in elections. By noting in a paragraph that certain early proponents of abortion rights also held dubious opinions in favor of eugenics, Alito’s draft judgment goes even further into this racially sensitive zone.
Although Alito writes that Roe seemed to imply that the abortion right may be located within the Constitution and that identifying its precise position was not of utmost significance, Roe indicated the opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment was indeed the clause that performed the task. It has been vigorously challenged that the suggestion that is permitting states to restrict abortion is equivalent to abolishing formal racial segregation. The contrast highlights the conservative judges’ conviction that Roe is so highly problematic that they should overlook their traditional reluctance to overrule precedent and vehemently reject it. Alito’s draft decision does not broadly reflect Roberts’ opinions, but some of it appears to be tailored to the concerns of the other justices.
Christian conservatives and also many Republican elected officials have long favored overturning Roe. In 2016, Trump campaigned to name Supreme Court judges who would do so. Three judges were appointed to the bench during his time, and each was one-sided, with the majority in the decision. Garland specifically mentioned that Mifepristone had been licensed for use in pharmaceutical abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, a scientific organization that promotes abortion rights, claims that more than 90% of abortions occur during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy and that over half are now performed using tablets rather than procedures (Gerstein and Ward). Alito, a judge appointed by George W. Bush who joined the court in 2006, contends that the 1973 abortion rights decision was ill-conceived and gravely flawed because it created a right that was not recognized by the Constitution and foolishly attempted to remove the divisive topic from the political branch of government (Gerstein and Ward). According to Alito, Roe’s historical analysis ranged from the erroneous to the legally irrelevant, and its justification was incredibly flimsy. He also notes that the original ruling had adverse effects. The obvious conclusion is that the country’s history and customs do not have a strong foundation for the right to an abortion. Alito quotes a variety of Roe decision detractors with approval. Since the court frequently adheres to “judicial precedent” or upholds an original ruling, the Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw constitutional protection by overturning Roe v. Wade is uncommon.
A strong alliance of supporters and partners is necessary to reduce the adverse effects of restrictive abortion regulations and abortion criminalization as the globe adjusts to the new post-Roe reality. Fighting for reproductive freedoms requires an interdisciplinary strategy in which healthcare and public health experts must collaborate closely with communities and policymakers to create laws supported by scientific data, respect individual autonomy, and enhance health outcomes for all. Then and only then will we have legislative frameworks and healthcare systems that genuinely safeguard life.
Work Cited
Gerstein, Josh, and Alexander Ward. “Supreme court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows.” Politico, Web.