As Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, it was a woman who asked, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Justice Alito, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, wrote that rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution can only exist if they are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” He added that defending women’s reproductive rights via the 14th Amendment is unjustified since at the time of its adoption (1866) that a majority of states had outlawed abortions. As the story of Benjamin Franklin and the long overdue adoption of the 19th Amendment (1920) clearly illustrate, historically men write the laws and women must follow them.
Does the Dobbs decision, to return the issue of abortion back to each state’s elected representatives, infer that all persons with a uterus are hereby and henceforth property of the state wherein they reside and subject to the will of the majority of its voters? Justice Alito might have written that, but that would require identifying a male reproductive organ as the legal equivalent to that of a uterus. Perhaps, Justice Alito and his fellow constitutional purists might want to contemplate their role in interpreting the biological and legal equality between the sexes which the founders never had to consider or debate because until the last 100 years, women were never allowed in any room to decide anything that happened.
Overcoming the filibuster requires invoking cloture with 60 votes in the United States Senate, but overturning over 50 years of legal precedent takes only 5 justices. The Second Amendment historically guarantees every single American a modern-day AR-15 until violent behavior proves otherwise. Meanwhile, not a single woman in these United States can be trusted to make medical decisions within the nine months of pregnancy. What an ironic American political oxymoron that is. By the way, Dobbs overturning Roe (and Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is not the same as Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. Brown was decided 9-0; Dobbs needed only 6-3. Let us all hope and pray that Justice Alito never feels that Brown failed to unite the country and resolve racism in the United States or perhaps he might write to overturn it as well.
Is there only one way to be pro-life? I too have learned, agree, and share the Catholic Church’s teachings to protect the dignity of each and every life from conception to natural death. But I cannot support any law that nationalizes every woman and their uterus as property of the state, assumes every person with a uterus to be promiscuous and untrustworthy to make decisions on their own, and exclusively punishes female promiscuity with a lifetime of penniless hunger and homelessness for them and their offspring.
Let us also consider how the nationalization of every uterus as property can be misconstrued, abused, and corrupted. What might go wrong when the same crowds who continually fear overcrowding and overpopulation successfully influence lawmakers? Could the United States enact China’s one-child policy? Could the United States, in order to ensure better generations of recruits for the armed services, implement the same infant inspection process of that of ancient Sparta? Could the United States ever reinstall the practice of eugenics? Perhaps, ownership and control of reproduction should be left to be interpreted as a private right and responsibility.
The decision has been rendered and published; what do we do now? We can interrogate those running for office on pro-life platforms in order to distinguish those that are really pro-birth rather than pro-life. Every pro-life candidate should be asked if they are prepared to propose and enact legislation to tax and spend more for government housing, food stamps, childcare, public education, and Medicaid. Are they prepared to enact Dead-Beat-Dad bills to ensure every biological father pays his share to ensure the best childhood for every child? Will the states enacting the most restrictive abortion laws provide the most government assistance programs to single mothers fearful of a lifetime of poverty for her and her offspring? Are those states also prepared to financially improve their foster care systems and make adoption far more affordable? If one only cares about the moment a newborn first breathes and the nine months prior without consideration for the eighteen years after, they obviously do not truthfully care as much about lives and children as they preach. If they do not intend to financially provide for those unable to provide for themselves and their children, then they in fact propose a pro-birth agenda that continues to use poverty as punishment for fatherless children and female promiscuity while male promiscuity continues unhindered.
The Conservative-Liberal Independent 