Inconvenient Truths About Roe and Casey
As people continue to talk about the Supreme Court’s draft leak, the focus is on how to save Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey from getting overturned. Pro-abortion groups believe that it is a federal right to have an abortion and were made that way through these two specific cases. Furthermore, many of these individuals are supporting “late-term” abortions under the same principle. As much as the Left ordains Roe and Casey as sacred, there are inconvenient truths around these cases that counter their views and how it does not hold up as federal legislation.
Limits on Abortion
One of the things that pro-abortion groups want is limitless abortions. No matter how early or late a pregnant woman is, they should be allowed. The administration is not so subtle about avoiding answering this question. After all, Jen Psaki gave non-answers and snide remarks to a reporter who asked. It would be rather amusing if it wasn’t such an important issue. Yet, Roe v. Wade has limits on abortion. In 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texan law that banned abortions. As a result, it legalized abortion on a national scale. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion, declared that women’s right to abortion was protected by the 14th Amendment.
However, a woman's right to privacy had limitations. The court divided pregnancy into trimesters. During the first trimester, it is up to the woman to have an abortion. Afterward, the government can regulate abortion, but not ban it. During the third trimester, the state can prohibit it as the pregnancy becomes viable. However, abortions can still happen if the mother’s life is in danger. There is still heavy debate among Americans on this of course, but that was pretty much the extent of it by law.
This also appears in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. During the judgment, the fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade were upheld. However, instead of focusing on the trimesters, the viability method would be used instead. The same rules are applied involving trimesters till viability. However, Casey v. Planned Parenthood allows states to oppose restrictions on abortion as long as it doesn’t cause an “undue burden.” This leads to the next inconvenience of these laws.
Dobbs v. Jackson: A Viable Counter
Dobbs v. Jackson is the case that starts the arguments about abortions on the Federal level. It addresses whether states can put in pre-viability restrictions. Many pro-choice people were enraged by the notion. However, Casey v. Planned Parenthood actually gives some lenience towards the idea. After all, the ruling did give states the ability to oppose restrictions on abortions as long as it doesn’t impose an undue burden.
The Mississippi Gestational Age Act was passed in 2018 as a result of wanting to get rid of the “barbaric nature” of the procedure after the 15-week period. Without going into the gory details, the way that they perform abortions after 15 weeks is considered a “physical and psychological risk” for everyone involved. The position allowed for the legislation to bypass the undue burden clause. This is why Dobbs v. Jackson was taken to the Supreme Court, as the argument continued on these restrictions. However, it is Casey v. Planned Parenthood that also allows these types of restrictions to apply.
Roe and Casey: More Complicated Than You Think
While Roe and Casey are upheld as saints of Abortion rights. There is more to the story. First of all, these judgments do have limits on abortions depending on viability. Second, it has been attaching itself to 14th Amendment’s coattails for years. Finally, they were never supposed to be the arbiters of abortion.
States still have the ability to impose restrictions as long as they don’t impose an undue burden on the maternal parent or others. Conversely, people only seem to focus on the fact that they are only federal abortion guidelines. It seems like this gearing to be a ‘state vs. federal’ argument, especially with the details surrounding the leak.
Inconvenient Truths
These are inconvenient truths about Roe v. Wade and PPH v. Casey that people should be aware of. Extremists and politicians will use this issue to deflect or create unrest, but It’s unlikely that anyone’s views are going to be changed. So, the battle will just change venues, moving from the federal government to the individual states.
Living in the American Democratic Republic means that every eligible voter will have a voice in deciding what the laws and limits will be within the state they live. That gives us choices.
