Why Roe v. Wade May Soon Be Aborted

Not in the literal sense, of course. I have no comment about those old men in robes and their private lives. I’m talking about the precedent they used to support this fanciful idea that terminating a pregnancy is part of a woman’s “privacy.” They relied on Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that had been decided a few years before which held that the choice to use birth control was part of the right to privacy, and no state could interfere.

In other words, the court held that the choice “not to get pregnant” was protected by the Constitution. I’d even agree.

But what Griswold did not decide is whether “not being” pregnant or becoming “un-pregnant” was an inherent part of the right to privacy. And that’s where Roe veered off the highway of the acceptable and into the ditch of the undeniably tragic. Because Justice Harry Blackmum was able to convince six of his colleagues to become partisan politicians and abandon their duties as neutral arbiters of the law, a precedent was set that legalized the destruction of two full generations of Americans.

Perhaps, finally, that will end.

Roe did not just “create” abortion rights. It is, itself, an abortion of the law. Even the sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought it was a poor decision. Let’s deal with the part where seven justices ripped up the Constitution to make some activists happy. Let’s tell Hamilton and Madison we’re sorry.

We can let the states deal with the fallout. It should have been that way from the very beginning, before millions of unborn Americans were guinea pigs for a creative old white man in a robe.

========

Christine Flowers is an attorney and a columnist for the Delaware County Daily Times, and can be reached at cflowers1961@gmail.com. Copyright 2021 Christine Flowers, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.