As Roe v. Wade is overturned, readers respond

Inquirer readers have a lot to say about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned and most abortions will be banned, the “pro-life” movement needs to push for the rest of the pro-life agenda. I would expect a flood of new laws promoting pre- and post-natal care. Maternity and paternity leave would be next. Kids get sick, so sick leave (preferably paid sick leave) needs to be provided. Do we want the new mothers to work? Then we need a far better childcare system. If mothers are not to work but take care of their children, the welfare system needs to be enhanced. These additional babies (and all the rest of us) need a lifetime healthcare system. Not all babies will look like those in pro-life pictures. Of course, pro-lifers will be in favor of lifetime help for both the mentally and physically disabled. Will you adopt a mentally or physically disabled infant? How many children will you adopt? I hope the “pro-lifers” are in favor of tax increases. Clearly, there must be adequate funding for education, but there would also need more funding for the police, prisons, social workers, and drug addiction counselors. The pro-life movement would need to be open to halfway houses in their neighborhood. Where will pro-lifers stand on unemployment compensation? Then there is an adequately funded social security system. And finally, what are pro-lifers going to do about senior care?

I can support this kind of pro-life agenda. Anything less is just pro-birth. —Timothy Walsh, Ardmore

Many pro-life advocates claim the only question to consider about abortion is whether to take the life of a “pre-born” child.

Actually, the question is whether 100% of Americans must follow the religious beliefs of the 38% who find abortion morally wrong. Our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Therefore, the government cannot make all Americans follow the moral beliefs of a group of religious people.

I won’t debate the wide-ranging belief systems of different groups of Americans. There is great variety in who believes what, and why, in our pluralistic country. Jews may believe life begins at the first breath. Some Muslim scholars say abortions up to 120 days of fetal development are permitted. Though many Catholic and Protestant churches say life begins at conception, their congregants have differing opinions, with a majority in both saying abortions should be allowed in at least some cases. And three in 10 adults have no religious affiliation. But 52% of all Americans in a recent, post-Supreme Court leak Gallup poll find abortion morally acceptable, the highest ever recorded.

We are a secular, pluralistic country with people who believe a lot of different things. For those who believe abortion is morally wrong, please, don’t have one. But please don’t require me to follow your religious beliefs in our (currently) free America. —Kathleen O’Connell, LaMount, Pa

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is a direct contradiction to everything our country and the Constitution stand for. To wit: One of the leading themes in the Preamble of the Constitution, its sole philosophical premise, is “We the People.” One would think that Supreme Court decisions would therefore reflect the desires of the majority of citizens; polls show that maintaining Roe v. Wade is the preference of a wide majority of Americans.

The philosophy of “Originalism” with regard to the Constitution requires mental gymnastics to support a position holding that “if it isn’t in the Constitution it isn’t a guaranteed right of citizens.” While the document itself was the most enlightened governing treatise of all time — in the late 1700s — and had many noble premises, it does not and could not possibly have addressed so many important topics present in our 21st century lives. Further, while our founding fathers were the colonies’ leading thinkers behind the birth of our great democracy, they explicitly stated that “all men are created equal,” entirely omitting women as members of our fledgling country. Of note, many of them were slave owners.

Humankind’s knowledge has grown exponentially since the founding of our nation, and to rely so resolutely on an original document that was a great start, but in clear hindsight ignored the rights (or even the mere presence) of so many of its people, does a grave injustice. Women have been fighting for equal rights for over one century; overturning Roe v. Wade nullifies a critical element of their hard-earned progress. It is imperative that we restore the full rights our mothers, wives, and daughters have over the self-determination they absolutely deserve. —M. Cohen, Washington Crossing

It is quite notable that Justice Thomas has not included overturning the Loving decision in his list of Supreme Court decisions that he thinks should be reconsidered. All his suggestions relate to rights that have been protected by the assumption of privacy and have protected many groups of people against discrimination and interference with their private lives. The Loving decision, which protected interracial marriage, has made it possible for Thomas to be married to a white woman, so overturning it would be against his personal interest. This omission is yet another example of the hypocrisy of the current Court in its decisions to expand gun rights on the Federal level beyond what many states allow, while overturning the rights of women and giving more power to the states to regulate the bodies of women. These decisions also call into question whether the justices who signed the opinions have a consistent judicial philosophy regarding states’ rights. I think that we should believe Justice Thomas and expect future challenges to these established rights. —Barbara Schick, Merion Station

Why hasn’t there been one mention of men in all these state anti-abortion laws?

Why aren’t men being held accountable and responsible? Shouldn’t these laws command that the father is found and made to provide pre- and post-natal care and child support?

They should threaten the fathers with vasectomies since the legislators are criminalizing women for seeking healthcare that may include birth control or abortion. Then establish paternity and court-ordered support long before birth.

And why aren’t these pro-lifers concerned about the mother’s health? Why are they only concerned about the zygote? Since legislators evidently don’t care about people, they should be made to attend a class about sexual healthcare showing that an abortion might be necessary to save a person’s life. Like if someone has an ectopic pregnancy. Just like they’re making people seeking abortions view ultrasounds. That’s one of many reasons abortion should only be between a pregnant person and their doctor. Politicians should never be involved, as we are a democracy where individual freedoms are sacrosanct.

We have to stop Republicans from pushing their anti-abortion beliefs down our throats. If they don’t agree, then don’t have one. But why can’t others have them, since they believe otherwise?

Why are Republicans the only ones that have freedom of religion? How is that constitutional? Why don’t we have freedom of choice? Where are our individual freedoms? —Michael Miller Jr., Philadelphia

The Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion not only was decided wrongly, but the logic involved was also flawed. In citing the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the right to abortion mentioned, it ignores the fact that cases have been decided where the topic was, likewise, not in the Constitution.

Three cases in point: The first is the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling which overturned the Plessy decision regarding the doctrine of separate, but equal education. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to equal education, or, for that matter, any education at all. Yet the Court, citing the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, overruled the precedent.

The second example is the original Roe decision. It protects the woman’s “liberty to choose” under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. No one dissented that there was nothing mentioned about abortion in the Constitution.

The last example relates to recent Court decisions regarding firearms. The second amendment gives a person the right to own a musket for the purpose of joining a militia in the common defense. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention assault rifles or open carry.

The Court’s recent decision in Roe, therefore, is not based on the reading of the Constitution, but rather on the personal beliefs of some justices. Their logic is a smokescreen for their personal agendas and has no place in making policy. —Jeff Ettinger, Huntingdon Valley

As I suppose most common-sense people are, I am appalled at the Supreme Court’s withdrawal of the rights granted under Roe v Wade. I have yet to meet a person who woke up one morning and said, “Hey! I think I’ll go get an abortion today! [insert smiley face emoji here].” And since the right to own their own body is no longer the law of the land, I believe I have a simple, equitable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies: Every person presenting as male at birth (“male”) will be given a vasectomy upon reaching puberty. Any doctor knowing of fertile males and not referring them for sterilization will be subject to prosecution. Sperm can be frozen for future use, but should natural fertilization be preferred, the procedure can easily be reversed.

People presenting as female at birth (“female”) can then be free to engage in heterosexual activities without fear of getting pregnant. (Oh, and don’t worry about the prophylactic industry. We’ll still need to protect against STDs.) Once a female decides that it’s time for her to procreate — taking into consideration a myriad of factors that may be important to her such as marital status, income, age, etc. — she can either choose to use the sperm of her significant other (if any) or any available sperm at a sperm bank.

Think of it – no unwanted pregnancies, even from rape or incest. Every child is welcomed into a loving home. What an incredibly novel idea. And all we need to do is … snip snip. A simple outpatient procedure, much less invasive and dangerous than abortion.

We will, of course, have to start retroactively, and I hereby volunteer the male conservative justices to be first in line. —Lisa Pottiger, Media

In 2022, women now have fewer rights than their mothers did.

Three Supreme Court justices misled Congress on their views related to Roe v. Wade.

Another justice wrote the recent majority opinion advocating for the carrying of firearms and is married to a woman who was working at the highest levels to overturn the results of a legitimate presidential election.

A former president believed Italian satellites interfered with voting machines.

It is all a stunning and regrettable reality in today’s America. —Mary Kay Owen, Downingtown

There are hundreds of thousands of registered nurses, mostly retired, who worked in large city hospitals in the early days before Roe v. Wade. I saw young girls and women hemorrhaging in the Emergency Rooms, hanging on by a thread in the ICUs, and some eventually died from sepsis. Because of a poor decision, rape, or incest, they felt there was no way out of their pregnancy except the “back alley” abortion. Today we saw women’s healthcare going back 50+ years.

Please, my fellow senior nurses, speak up and tell everyone you know what you saw, pre-Roe v. Wade.

Sad for our future granddaughters. —Nancy Davidson Niemiec, West Chester

Now that the morality police has succeeded in imposing its will on the American public — religious freedom for whom, exactly? — we are ever closer to a theocratic state in which one religious perspective becomes the only legal one.

I am eager to hear of programs from these self-righteous purists which will actually help feed, house, and educate children who do not have the familial resources for care. I am equally eager to hear of strategies to assume medical care for mothers and children whose lives might be in jeopardy. This is me not holding my breath. We know their agenda was never about compassion. By lying (to congress) and by manipulating the makeup of the courts, a further erosion of contraceptive and LGBT rights is next. —James Davis, Conshohocken

The problem with Roe v. Wade is not that the decision was based on some non-existent right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. I don’t care what Clarence Thomas says – there is an implicit, if not explicit, constitutional right to privacy. It’s in the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. It’s in the First Amendment’s right to free speech and its right to the free exercise of religion. Clearly, Clarence Thomas thinks there is a right to privacy when it comes to his wife’s email and text messages.

But those First and Fourth Amendment rights are not unlimited. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all governmental searches and seizures; only unreasonable ones. Everyone knows that, notwithstanding the First Amendment, you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. And, as we learned in law school, your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. No, the problem with Roe v. Wade is that it was couched in terms of the viability of the fetus. It’s never a good idea to base a constitutional right on the existing state of science. Fetuses might not have been viable at 20 weeks in 1973, but that is probably not true today and certainly won’t be true tomorrow. There will be a day when “we” will be able to “grow” a child completely outside the womb. On that day, every fetus will be “viable.” Just like searches and seizures and free speech and arm swinging, the answer to the problem of abortion is one of balancing competing rights. I believe that a person’s right to control their own body outweighs the rights of their one-week-old fetus, but I also believe that an eight-month-old fetus’s rights outweigh those of its mother. Somewhere between one week and eight months, my scale of justice tips from one way to the other. The answer to the problem of abortion is to pick a date and stick with it. The date should be as early as possible taking into account the ever-increasing rights of the fetus, but certainly must give enough time for the person to find out that they are even pregnant and then provide enough time for them to make a sober, reasoned decision about whether to keep or terminate that pregnancy. Twenty weeks seems reasonable to me, but I’m open to considering a different number. —Steve Mendelsohn, Penn Valley

Conservatives in SCOTUS want to take America back to the vision of the drafters of the Constitution, where landed white males were in charge. Women were not mentioned, and Blacks (slaves) were 3/5 of a person. While slavery was abolished, and Blacks were given the right to vote, nowhere does it say they are still not 3/5 of a person. And the Court’s recent actions on access to voting show much. Apparently, the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, and even though high-powered weapons did not exist then, they ignore that as they do the part about militias. Soon, your tax dollars will be used to indoctrinate children into religious tenets that one may object to. Presidents who lost the popular vote nominated members for the Court and were confirmed by Senators who represent far less than the majority of the people. It is difficult to think that was the vision of the drafters. The rollbacks have only just started. Anyone who is not a heterosexual white male is at the greatest risk. —Robert Franz, Plymouth Meeting

In his concurring opinion overturning Roe v Wade, Clarence Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’” This means that contraception, gay relations, and gay marriage are now on the chopping block. Interestingly, he had nothing to say about Loving, which ruled that bans on racial intermarriage were unconstitutional. Conservative justices do not believe in a right to privacy protected by the Constitution. They want to leave it up to each state to decide what is permissible. In red states, the Religious Right dominates, which means that they are adamantly opposed to contraception, gay relations, and gay marriage. If the court moves in this direction, which is likely, laws against contraception, gay relations, and gay marriage will be back on the books. Christian sharia law is coming to America. Look at what is happening to transgender kids & their families in Texas as a sign of what is to come. And do not forget about the book burnings. —George Magakis, Jr., Norristown