American Abortion

 The history of abortion in America is a nuanced and continuing story to this day, one that cannot be overlooked in its relation to the fundamental values of America and its effects on the country’s future. Now that Roe v Wade and thus Casey v Planned Parenthood has been overturned, with the highest court of the land retreating to a fundamentalist view of the Constitution, many basic rights in our country face a unique level of opposition. 

The Supreme Court, through their judgment of the Constitution, first derived the right to privacy in Griswald v. Connecticut 1965 from 6 amendments, and it has since been upheld as a hallmark of American laws. Today, the Supreme Court abolished the privacy of those pregnant, essentially delegitimizing the right to privacy - the first time the Court has ever revoked a right it once recognized. Disregarding more than 50 years of bipartisanly upheld precedent, the court majority said because the constitution did not mention abortion, the founders did not intend to protect it, as well as denied the extension of the 14th Amendment’s protection of personal liberty and restriction of state action to privacy as it was initially written about protecting the rights of those formerly enslaved. However, the Constitution does not mention many things that have come to the political spotlight. In fact, the 9th Ammendment extends protection to any traditional right that was not already included - a vague statement that many consider to include the right to privacy - showing that the founders knew their Constitution was not perfect and, in time, Americans would face issues that could not be predicted, thus recognizing the importance of extension and interpretation of their principles early on. This logical awareness of growth is not exhibited in the fundamentalist rhetoric of the court in Dobbs, even though the purpose of fundamentalism is to uphold a strict and literal interpretation of scripture, like the 9th ammendment. It seems these judges have blurred the lines of church and state, supporting fundamentalism to their shared Christian religion by protecting the sanctity of life rather than to their Constitution. 

When reading about Roe, I noticed the 1st Ammendment that states Congress can't make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This made me wonder if establishing laws that rest upon one concrete viewpoint on abortion benefits one religion over the other. Laws that seek to end abortion can be clearly linked to Christian conservative ideals, whereas the Jewish faith, among other varied groups, believes life begins at birth. Could one go as far as to say this is the government forcibly spreading specific religious views on free citizens? It seems the court is no longer primarily focused on furthering individual liberty and independence, showing why fundamentalism is not viable in law as it does not account for the progression of civilization and neglects that the founder's words in the constitution are vague and need to be recognized in their application to current events to create laws that represent America’s values and freedoms. With the court neglecting to regard precedent, it instead set a dangerous new one, leaving many Americans scared of the possibility that other rights specifically protected by privacy, like same-sex marriage, could now be taken away at the whim of the Supreme Court. It is disheartening to know these jurors will be in this position for life after showing us we cannot trust this court to represent the Constitution fairly in regard to the laws and rights that affect our lives.