Contact the Author |

30 Jun

Turns out, my wife and the Supreme Court have some things in common.

Of course, both look good in a long black robe.  Both expect their word to be taken as absolute law of the land (or the house).  Both will sometimes hear an appeal.  But it goes beyond that.

When my wife and I hash out a particular issue we look at both sides, we ask questions, and we look at precedents, which is what I’m hoping the Supreme Court does as well.  Then, we make a decision and move on.

Sort of.

You see, with my wife, and with the Supreme Court apparently, nothing is ever really settled.  Someone can always bring the issue back up, and then it gets discussed again, and then another decision is made, and we move on.

As you can imagine, this causes a bit of strife on the homefront.  I am very linear, logical, and big into efficiency.  (I have written this entire piece in thirty seven seconds; that is how efficient I am.)  When a decision is made, I check the box and move on to whatever is next on the list.  Hopefully, it’s nachos.

My wife, on the other hand, is highly analytical.  No decision is good enough to not be revisited, in case things have changed.  As a result, when I think a decision has been made and I have moved on, she reserves the right (and often exercises said right) to bring it back up and restart the process. 

Many times it is a good idea, but like I said, it causes some strife.

Now, let’s look at those men and women in black, the Supreme Court.  They have just turned the country upside down by doing the exact same thing; re-engaging on a decision that was made over a generation ago with regards to abortion.

I guess I should give you my personal opinion on abortion before I go further.  I was raised Catholic, and of course that influences my view. However, I am also an American, so please reserve your judgement until you read the ENTIRE next two paragraphs.

I think killing an unborn child is wrong.  It is not a fact; it is my opinion.  The following are also my opinions:

  1. The health of the mother is at least as important as the health of the unborn.
  2. There are valid medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy.
  3. Parents must be able to make a decision regarding pregnancies that will end with serious birth issues.

Based on the above, I do not think abortion should be outlawed.  Yes, terminating a pregnancy for convenience because you were too lazy to use birth control is morally wrong, but those are only a portion of the abortions performed, and we shouldn’t use those to justify outlawing abortions necessary for the good of the mother or of the greater community (yes, I am a believer in the greater good).  

Thomas Jefferson once said (and it’s written on the Southeast Portico of the Jefferson Memorial):

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” 

The above could be interpreted several different ways.  You could absolutely use it to justify what the Supreme Court did in revisiting the decision.  You could also say that this particular Founding Father understood that we would move forward as a society and that we SHOULD be able to amend the laws and Constitution as we do so.

But this doesn’t appear to be moving forward.  To me, it seems that the Supreme Court went a bit backward on this one.  First, we are a democratic republic, and  61% of Americans say abortion should be legal (according to Pew Research Center).  Second, virtually all non-religious entities, and almost EVERY major medical organization, says overturning Roe-v-Wade was a mistake, and we are supposed to be a nation founded on separation between church and state.  It’s not always about science, but science does count.

If you feel abortion is morally wrong in any circumstance, I respect your decision, and you should NEVER be forced to have one for any reason.  However, if you feel that it is something necessary for your health or well-being, my morals should not stand in the way of your decision.

This Supreme Court decision has caused quite a stir (understatement).  True, some Americans are just looking for something to fight about.  However, many are justifiably upset, and fear that this revisiting opens Pandora’s box about other things that don’t really sit well with conservatives: LGQBT rights, same-sex marriages, contraception.  I will remind you of something that I wrote about before; while the Senate is split 50/50 (yes, tiebreaker going to the Democrats due to VP), the fifty Republican Senators represent 80 MILLION less Americans in our country, because of the populations of the states they represent.  So the conservative Republicans representing 80 million less Americans are moving us towards values espoused in the 1950’s and 1960’s by the way they have staffed the Supreme Court.  This is 2022; isn’t that “backwards?” 

I have my morals and values.  You have yours.  As long as yours don’t control my actions or impact my rights, I don’t care what you do.  I respect those that feel the same.  My vision of America is that everyone functions within a legal framework that allows their personal freedoms without unnecessarily imparting their morals or values on others.  What’s happening is not that.  People with moral objections to abortion are importing their morals on others, and that seems opposite of what we are supposed to stand for.  This is a freedom issue, a healthcare issue, and a woman’s rights issue.  Not sure we want to go backwards in those areas.

My wife is a wonderful woman; many times she is right, and when she is not, she can admit it and undo her decision.  Let’s hope that’s one more thing she and the Supreme Court have in common.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.