Two recent decisions by the Supreme Court have progressives/Democrats engaging in weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is astounding to see the emotional, visceral reaction that takes place. Celebrities claiming the Supreme Court Justices are the Taliban or that democracy is now destroyed. Senators questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court or calling for packing the court with new justices.
I would be willing to bet more than just one beer that many, if not most, of those protesting as well as those talking heads, have not read either decision. That might be a very good place to start.
The court did not outlaw abortion. The court corrected a curse placed on our society back in 1973 by seven judges of the Supreme Court when they decided they were not only judges but legislators and wrote law finding a right to an abortion contained within a right of privacy; both of which are not mentioned in the Constitution or any amendments thereto. As a result of this imprudent ruling the country has experienced nearly 50 years of turmoil over an issue that would have been resolved by legislative action in the individual states and the country would not have been torn apart as it is now and will likely be for a period of time.
Critics have been quick to point out that the court’s decision regarding the right to carry a firearm was upheld while the right to an abortion was not. That is not what happened as: 1) The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in the Constitution. 2) Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and when the 14th amendment guaranteeing due process was passed, abortion was a crime in most of the states. Clearly it was not a right.
The argument supporting the very restrictive gun law in New York was lost when the Attorney General of New York was asked the following question by Justice Kavanaugh: Can a man who comes home late at night by subway, carrying large amounts of cash from his business and who lives in a high crime area and must walk five blocks from the station to his home obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon for protection? The New York Attorney General answered that he could not because he had not yet been the victim of a crime. That answer doomed the argument for the New York law.
Both decisions were good decisions. They followed the constitution. Abortion, not being a right contained in the constitution, is left to either the Congress to enact a national law or the respective state legislatures to enact a law that is representative of most of the people in that state.
Instead of the hyperbole and outrageous statements by those who believe in permitting abortion they should calm down, take a deep breath, and then work to enact legislation that fits their view of what the law should be. Similarly, those who think abortion is something society should not condone should do the same.
Hopefully calmer heads will prevail, and a law will be enacted that both sides may not think is ideal but one they can live with. My own view is that any abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected is the taking of a human life. But I could live with a law that would permit abortions up through the first trimester of pregnancy and in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother. It isn’t perfect but I wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
—John L. Lengemann,