Editorial Excerpts, September 2022
Published: September 19, 2022
… For the first time in history, the Supreme Court has eliminated an established constitutional right involving the most fundamental of human concerns: the dignity and autonomy to decide what happens to your body. …
The implications of this reversal will be devastating, throwing America into a new era of struggle over abortion laws—an era that will be marked by chaos, confusion, and human suffering. About half the states in the United States are expected to enact laws that restrict or make abortion illegal in all or most cases. Many women may be forced by law to carry pregnancies to term, even, in some cases, those caused by rape or incest. Some will likely die, especially those with pregnancy complications that must be treated with abortion or those who resort to unsafe means of abortion because they can’t afford to travel to states where the procedure remains legal. Even those who are able to travel to other states could face the risk of criminal prosecution. Some could go to prison, as could the doctors who care for them. Miscarriages could be investigated as murders, which has already happened in several states, and may become only more common. Without full control over their bodies, women will lose their ability to function as equal members of American society. …
By the majority’s reasoning, the right to terminate a pregnancy is not “deeply rooted” in the history and tradition of the United States—a country whose Constitution was written by a small band of wealthy white men, many of whom owned slaves and most, if not all, of whom considered women to be second-class citizens without any say in politics.
… the majority on this Supreme Court has demonstrated its disregard for precedent, public opinion, and the Court’s own legitimacy in the eyes of the American people. We will be paying the price for decades to come.
– The New York Times, June 24, 2022
In a reckless fit of judicial activism that will redound for generations, the Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the half-century-old precedent that declared that Americans have a constitutional right to obtain abortions. It is hard to exaggerate how wrongheaded, radical, and dangerous this ruling is, and not just for anyone who could ever become pregnant. …
In part because Americans rely on Supreme Court rulings to make decisions and plan for the future, overturning a precedent of Roe’s vintage and significance should be done only in exceptional circumstances—meaning, if the decision was egregiously wrong. This was obviously not the case with Roe, which the Court had previously reviewed and upheld and which found its basis in the simple concept that a government committed to respecting fundamental liberties must place a high premium on individuals’ prerogative to make the most intimate and personal choices. Nor was Roe outside the mainstream of American values, with polls showing broad popular acceptance of the ruling before the justices eviscerated it. …
The Court’s audacious attack on abortion rights raises questions about the future of other legal guarantees, including same-sex marriage, access to contraception, and even interracial marriage. These guarantees are based on concepts of individual rights of the sort the Court majority has now disregarded. …
The last victim is the Court itself. In a stroke, a heedless majority has done more to undermine the Court’s credibility than in any other action it has taken in modern times. Fundamental to its place in American society is the notion that the justices are more than just politicians in robes—that they are committed to conscientiously interpreting the law, with regard to text, tradition, history, logic, judicial restraint, and common practice, rather than imposing their political or ideological preferences as quickly and as far as they can. In much of the country, this image will now be shattered. So, too, will be Americans’ expectations that they can count on any Court ruling to remain the durable law of the land. We are entering a new era of distrust and volatility in the legal system in a country that needs stability in its governmental institutions, rather than more venom and tumult. …