Kamala Harris came out guns blazing during remarks after a leaked Supreme Court document showed a draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade
· ‘Those Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women. Well we say, how dare they?’ Harris told the cheering crowd
· Added: ‘How dare they tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body… How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?’
The recently leaked draft opinion that opines that Roe vs. Wade law should be revoked has provoked an immediate reaction from many that, if analyzed, is using it more for political gain than reality.
First, it was not a decision, but simply a document spelling out why the law should be overturned. The opinion and the supporters should not surprise anyone that has dealt with having to come up with a difficult solution to a problem.
Most cases the final product is a compromise from different views. Personally I am extremely worried, not about what was leaked, but the leak itself. I am not an attorney, but William H. Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion is a legal piece that merits reading. This is the main objection, as written;
The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not «so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,» Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very
existence of the debate is evidence that the «right» to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.
The point I am making is that the “leak” had nothing to do with the existing law and its motivation was political, in order to incite a partisan D voting group that seems unenthused for the next November voting. The law’s controversy is old and well known, but it is being used by politicians and partisans that misinterpret Rove vs. Wade, content.
The law federalizes what had been until 1973 a State decision, and if revoked it does not stop abortions, but return to each State voters to implement if and when to use this action. Abortions will not be stopped, only some legislatures will decide if limits, mostly when, will need to be made. It is a rightful return to a Federalist Constitution. At least we saw a topic that did not make Kamala laugh, like the fate of Ukrainians refugees. In her anger she misspoke, as one who “dares”, I have never thought of the women’s body.
We were defending anther body that of the fetus that if not destroyed would become an independent human with all the rights she now has. How dare HER to stop a future being that she had voluntarily created, because of whatever reason. Not becoming pregnant is easy and disposing of a baby you changed your mind keeping, as also easy, as in adoption. Murder, when there is no health reason, should never be the answer!
Fernando J. Milanes, MD