Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on an abortion case from Mississippi. Specifically, the state law would ban abortions after 15 weeks, or 3 and 3/4 months. This law, of course, sent liberal, abortion supporting people into a tizzy. What about a woman's right to choose, they howled? Don't tell us what we can do with our body others screamed. Oddly, at least to me, is the pro life crowd seemed ok with the Mississippi law. Odd because, even at 15 weeks a human life is in progress. Since there seems to be medical consensus that a heartbeat can be reliably detected at about six and a half to seven weeks, it would seem pro lifers would object to any abortions after that period as being legal.
The legal argument isn't really about choice in my opinion. It's about the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it mention abortion or pro choice or a woman's right to choose, etc. all of the arguments made to justify Roe v. Wade. That case may have been the most egregious decision ever rendered by the Court. Nothing in the Constitution gives a woman, or anyone for that matter, the right to decide when to end a pregnancy.
As I see it, once a heartbeat is detected a life has begun. It may not be the life you want, or when you wanted it, but it's a life nontheless. There are so many wonderful stories of mothers who chose life despite less than ideal circumstances for bringing a child into the world. Truly, is any time ideal? There's always something to justify ending the pregnancy. The Mississippi law allows exceptions for certain medical reasons but not for rape or incest. To me, that's the toughest question to answer. A strong argument can be made for terminating a pregnancy in either of those scenarios. I'm guessing few mothers would want to be reminded daily of that crime perpetrated on them. I believe there must be an exception in those instances.
Court watchers love to interpret a Justice's leanings based on their questioning of the attorneys. Many times that is correct. But it's not always true. If it applies in this case, the traditionally liberal justices will oppose the law and the traditionally conservative justices will vote to uphold the law. Observers believe Justice Kavanaugh may be a wildcard but I disagree.
His questions were mostly about precedent and how it shouldn't bar the Court from overturning a bad decision. Traditionally, the Court pays great respect to a previous decision though I can't for the life of me understand why. A bad decision is a bad decision. The sooner it's corrected the better. Otherwise, as is this case, supporters of Roe will scream it's been settled law for almost 50 years!! 50 years of bad law is still 50 years of bad law. It should've been overturned long ago.
Again, my point relates to the Constitution not providing any such right to terminate a life. It's made up by Justices who wanted to justify a decision. Much like Justice Roberts' idiotic vote in relation to Obamacare as a tax in order to justify a bad decision. The great late Justice Antonin Scalia said it best when he said, "the Constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say". I couldn't agree more. If the great document fails to address an issue it isn't for nine unelected people to decide. It should be decided in Congress. Of course, those spineless weasels want nothing to do with deciding a controversial issue. Such is the state of our "leaders".
My view is, and will continue to be, that if life begins with a heartbeat, any termination of that life going forward is murder other than the exceptions discussed earlier. I'm at a loss to see any other conclusion. We can't make up the rules just because we don't like the game. Enough with playing with the Constitution, trying to fit square pegs into round holes. It says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. I wish I'd said that. As for a right to choose, which doesn't exist when it comes to life, the Mississippi law gives 15 weeks to make that choice. If you can't make a decision, any decision, in 15 weeks I feel for you. You're hopelessly wishy washy.It's the pro life crowd that ought to be complaining about this particular law. Pro choice people are getting exactly what they want, just not everything they want. Either way, the Court's decision shouldn't result in rioting but we know it will if the Court upholds the law. Think about it. Liberal, pro choice people will be rioting even though they won 15 weeks to commit murder.