It’s More Than Abortion

Nothing livens up a conversation more than the subject of abortion. More even than whether Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. That’s been true for years, but this week you couldn’t get on a line at a McDonalds without hearing that subject being bandied about. So why should we be any different?

As even every parakeet knows by now, a draft Supreme Court opinion written by Sam Alito was leaked to the press. Not surprisingly, but somehow still shockingly, Justice Alito not only utterly rejects the rationale of Roe v. Wade he mocks it. Neglecting every modicum of respect for precedent and for the decorum of the Court, Alito treats Roe as if it were written by a two-year-old pounding on a keyboard.

I will repeat now what everyone else says before they treat the Alito draft as if it were actually the final decision – don’t treat the Alito draft as if it were actually the final decision. Having said that, I, like everyone else, will now treat the Alito draft as if it were the final decision. 

The Alito draft is wrong. But so is its opposition.

Not since “Defund the Police,” has a group of people with good intentions and residing on the right side of things used a phrase to describe their position as inaccurately and ineffectively as the pro-choice movement has when it argues that “women have the right to control their own bodies.” 

No rational person (and I realize that this does limit the population) would disagree with the idea that while women have the right to control their own bodies, they have no right to control the bodies of others. That’s basic. So, the abortion issue then becomes: when is another person injected into the picture (pun intended)? When does life begin? Roe said it was at the third trimester. Casey revised that a bit and simply (over-simply) set the bar at “viability.” These standards are inadequate now and they will become even more inadequate in the future.

Abortion is just one of the many legal issues that will soon confront us on the question of when life begins. When does something become a “person?” How about fertilized eggs? Robots? Clones? Are they alive? Are they “people”? There are some now who are arguing that animals have Constitutional rights. Hell, the Supreme Court has already said that corporations are people with the right to make political contributions. Maybe that atrocious decision can be re-visited if we get down to business and really decide who is a person and who isn’t. 

It is for Justice Sam and the Gang to stop diddling around with abortion and address the over-riding fundamental issue. They can do that. The Bill of Rights is replete with references to “people.” “People” have the right to peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, and so on. So, who are these “people” who have all these Constitutional protections? A fertilized egg may not be able to “peaceably assemble,” or “keep and bear arms” (any kind of arms), but clones could. So could robots. That’s the argument that needs to frame the abortion debate, not whether women have control over their own bodies.

And the answer can’t be state by state. If a “person’s” constitutional rights are a matter of what state they are in, then we will have turned the clock back to before the Civil War. 

Don’t ask me to offer a definition of what a “person” is. Personally, I would prefer to bestow that status on my laptop than on Donald Trump. But that’s not my job. That’s what the Supreme Court does. And some day, when we do not have a Supreme Court majority composed of antediluvian dingbats, the Court will do its job. A future devoutly to be wished.