The landmark United States Supreme Court decision named "Roe v Wade" (after a famous court case), which forbade the states from banning abortion has been in the news lately because, quite famously, the Supreme Court decided to repeal it (meaning that now each state can decide on their own how they want to legislate the matter).
The question that the current Supreme Court handled was whether Roe v Wade is actually constitutional. This is because the original decision for creating the law (by the Supreme Court of the time) was precisely that it's unconstitutional to ban abortion.
One could rightly ask how on Earth can the right to abortion be considered a constitutional right? Where exactly does the United States constitution state in any way, shape or form that abortion should be allowed, or that banning abortion is against the constitution?
It would have been one thing to say that the constitution takes no stance on the matter, and thus it's not a question of constitutionality. However, that was not the argument of the Supreme Court (back then). It was that the abortion ban is unconstitutional.
If you haven't been acquainted with the details of the case I bet that you couldn't guess in a million years what the argument was, ie. how it is deemed "unconstitutional" (I certainly couldn't have).
The argument was that legally banning abortion breaches the right to privacy.
You might still be a bit baffled: How on Earth does banning abortion breach the right to privacy?
The argument was that abortion is a private matter between the mother and the doctor, and thus it's a private matter.
If find this argument absolutely incomprehensible. A patient and a doctor cannot privately decide to murder another patient and get away with it because it's "a private matter between a patient and a doctor".
All rights are not equal. Some rights are more important than others. When two rights are in conflict with each other, the more important one wins. This is the reason why, for example, the right to free speech is limited and doesn't apply when said speech causes the violation of more fundamental rights (such as right to personal safety and life, or right of ownership of private property).
If we have to consider which fundamental human right is the most important of them all, above every other right, that would arguably be the right to life. This is pretty much the only right that, if infringed, cannot be reverted, remedied or compensated, and it's one of the biggest harms and losses caused to a human being. It is the one right that cannot be violated in the name of any other right. And for that very reason the opposite is the case with the reverse situation: In other words, any other right can and must be violated in order to save someone's life.
I find the idea that someone's right to privacy supersedes someone else's right to life to be absolutely abhorrent. It should be the exact opposite!
By the way, as a side note: Many people think that repealing Roe v Wade means that abortion will become illegal in the United States. Sure, it will become illegal in some states. What people don't realize that it will also have an opposite effect in the more "progressive" states. You see, Roe v Wade didn't only forbid banning abortion, but it actually set limits on when abortion can happen. Now that the law is gone, the limits are also gone. This means that each state can freely decide when abortion can happen.
Some may decide that it can never happen. Others may decide that it can happen at any time, even after birth.
You may think I'm exaggerating. I wish I were.
Comments
Post a Comment