Ken's Mouthpiece: Roe vs. Wade

When it was leaked last week that that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was debating on whether to overturn Roe vs. Wade decision, it quickly sent ripples around the country. No matter where you stand on abortion, I think we can all agree that it's one of the most contested "hot-button" issues of our time.

I am not here to debate abortion in itself. But instead, I'd like to talk about the residual impact that the recent leak and potential overturn will have.

To start things off, let's go back to the early 70's when the original Roe v. Wade decision was decided. It began with a woman from Texas named Norma McCorvey. In 1969, Norma became pregnant and decided to have an abortion. The problem was that Texas did not allow abortions at the time unless the life of the mother was in jeopardy. So, Norma hired a couple of attorneys and filed a lawsuit against her local District Attorney, Henry Wade. Her argument was that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional. The case was brought before the district court in her area of Texas and the court ruled in her favor. The state of Texas immediately appealed to the SCOTUS.

In 1973, the SCOTUS, citing the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that a woman had the right to choose whether she wanted to have an abortion. It was a landmark decision and to this day is still hotly debated. By the way, you might be wondering who "Roe" is in all of this. Well, it's none other than Norma McCorvey herself. "Jane Doe" was the legal pseudonym that was used by McCorvey for this case.

Of course, there are a lot more details to the case but I tried to break it down it down in a nutshell. So, now that we have a basic background of Roe v. Wade, lets fast-forward to present day.....

I was actually quite surprised that there was even a discussion by SCOTUS about overturning Roe v. Wade. No matter which side of the fence you're on, the original ruling has been on the books for nearly 50 years. Why now? And how or why was it leaked?

There is the political angle that can not be ignored. Joe Biden's approval ratings are pretty low and many political pundits, including a lot of Democrats, expect the Republicans to gain quite a few seats in the upcoming mid-term elections. The leaking of the potential overturn has certainly energized the Democratic masses. And as you would expect, the speculation about what "the conservatives might do next" is running rampant across the liberal networks. So, there is indeed a political advantage to be gained in all of this.

And let's look at how the actual leak is being viewed by opposing sides. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a sacred and trusted institution. So, having an insider spill the beans is something that we haven't really seen before. You might think that this breach of trust would be frowned upon by all. But in our current Divided States of America, that is not the case. While conservatives are calling the "leaker" a traitor, liberals are embracing this person as a hero.

Now, when you get right in the mix of the abortion debate, pro-choice women will usually stand firm on the "my body, my choice" argument. Therefore, the take is that men really shouldn't have any say in the matter. In itself, it seems like a legitimate argument.

However....

What about men who identify as women? Do they now have a place in this argument?

There is also the debate about when life actually begins. Some people believe that it begins at conception. For argument's sake, let's say that this is true. Shouldn't there now be another person considered in the abortion decision? Of course, an embryo or fetus is not really in a good spot to defend itself. So, their battle is fought by the Pro-Life crowd.

And going off a bit in another direction, why does the "my body, my choice" argument only apply in the abortion argument? For instance, COVID vaccines were forced on countless Americans. Why wasn't a choice entertained in that scenario? I don't want to get into a vaccine pissing debate. I'm just using it as an example how many people view the choice argument as hypocrisy.

If Roe v. Wade is somehow overturned, it would not "outlaw" all abortions. At least, that's the way I understand it. It would simply put the decision back into the hands of the States. In a state like California for instance, it probably would not have a big effect. But in Republican controlled states, women who desired an abortion might have to travel to another state to have the procedure done. Like everything else, there are two ways to view this. On one hand, if a woman is going to have an abortion anyway, why make her travel 500 miles to do it. On the other, there's the argument for a state's right to govern their own populations. I'm aware that this onion has many layers, so let's just leave things on the surface for this discussion.

One could also argue....Why overturn a progressive decision that was made in 1973? If the Roe v. Wade decision gets overturned, isn't it like setting us back 50 years? And more specifically to the current situation, like I mentioned earlier, why now? With record gas prices, soaring inflation and a potential World War brewing in the Ukraine, do we really need to deal with this now?

It will be interesting to see where all of this leads. Will the "leaker" eventually be revealed? And was his/her motivation strategically planned with a political goal in mind? Or was this simply designed to distract us from something much bigger? I don't have any of these answers but I have a feeling this one is going to stick around for a while...