Bishop Fulton Sheen tweeted, “As Religion fades, so will freedom.” His observation that religious conviction and the moral conduct it promotes is both integral and essential to free society echoes that of founder/framer John Adams who observed in 1798, “Our...
Beginning of the End for Roe v. Wade?
The rhetoric around the recent Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been as hyperbolic as it is decisive. Let’s take some time to review some of the oral arguments to better understand both the Mississippi law and what we might discern from the questions from the justices.
The plaintiff, Thomas E. Dobbs, is the State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health. In 2018, Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act, which prohibited abortions after 15 weeks gestation except in medical emergencies or where severe fetal abnormalities were found. Jackson Women’s Health sued in federal District Court and won. The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which agreed with the District Court. Mr. Dobbs then petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the case. Arguing for the petitioner, Scott Steward, Solicitor General of Mississippi went first. And he started out with a bang.
MR. STEWART: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They’ve damaged the democratic process. They’ve poisoned the law. They’ve choked off compromise.
For 50 years, they’ve kept this Court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve. And 50 years on, they stand alone. Nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
I’ve talked before about the Roe opinion, but I believe Mr. Stewart is just as correct about Casey. Both claim that a woman’s right to liberty supersedes the right to life of the child in the womb, at least until the point of viability. As I understand it, the main difference between Roe and Casey is Roe used an arbitrary “trimester” approach while Casey used an arbitrary “undue burden” one. Roe divided a woman’s pregnancy into three “trimesters” and set conditions and exceptions on that schedule while Casey looked to see if the state law imposed an undue burden on the exercise of a woman’s liberty to terminate her pregnancy. Both found this right to abortion in the Fourteen Amendment’s Due Process Clause, specifically the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
For 50 years, Roe and Casey have been at the center of a political battle, and the court has been a willing participant. When was the last time the confirmation of a federal judge did not include the question of whether or not they support Roe? How long has the Senate used stare decisis as a sword of Damocles above the heads of nominated judges, requiring a demonstration of fealty to the right of abortion?
Consider this case: The Mississippi law here prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. The law includes robust exceptions for a woman’s life and health. It leaves months to obtain an abortion. Yet, the courts below struck the law down. It didn’t matter that the law applies — when an unborn child is undeniably human, when risks to women surge, and when the common abortion procedure is brutal. The lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability, it is unconstitutional no matter what. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
To me, the law in question seems more than reasonable, even if 15 weeks is just another arbitrary timeframe. However, Justice Breyer points out the crux of the question.
JUSTICE BREYER: … what stare decisis principles should be used to overrule a case like Roe. And they say Roe is special. What’s special about it? They say it’s rare. They call it a watershed. Why? Because the country is divided. Because feelings run high. And yet the country, for better or for worse, decided to resolve their differences by this Court laying down a constitutional principle, in this case, women’s choice. All right. That’s what makes it rare. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
While oral arguments discussed many questions about the Mississippi law, the big question revolves around stare decisis, Latin for “let the decision stand”. Justice Breyer says “they” claim Roe is special because it is rare. But how rare is it? Sure, there aren’t many cases about abortion that get to the Supreme Court, but there are plenty of cases where the court has “found” a right that isn’t in the language of the Constitution. Breyer says people claim Roe is special because the country is divided, but the country is divided over many things, not just abortion. Then Justice Breyer claims the country decided to resolve these differences by having the court lay down a constitutional principle. However, the country did not ask the court to decide the issue, a small group of activists did. The country did not consent to the court’s “laying down” constitutional principles, but the court did. Justice Breyer went on:
That’s not what I’m asking about. I want your reaction to what they said to follow from that. What the Court said follows from that is that it should be more unwilling to overrule a prior case, far more unwilling we should be, whether that case is right or wrong than the ordinary case. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
That, to me, is the crux of the matter, because that is what really makes Roe and Casey “rare” and dangerous: The court’s unwillingness to change its mind, even when it’s wrong. Of course, according to Justice Breyer, it’s not the court’s fault.
And why? Well, they have a lot of words there, but I’ll give you about 10 or 20. There will be inevitable efforts to overturn it. Of course, there will. Feelings run high. And it is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure, not political pressure.
Only “the most convincing justification can show that a later decision overruling,” if that’s what we do, “was anything but a surrender to political pressures or new members.” And that is an unjustified repudiation of principles on which the Court stakes its authority. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
The reason the Roe and Casey decisions are wrong is not that feelings run high. And the reason to overturn it has nothing to do with political pressure. In fact, I would say it is political pressure that has kept these bad opinions around for so long. So why does Justice Breyer believe the court should be so reluctant to overturn precedent?
Overruling unnecessarily and under pressure would lead to condemnation, the Court’s loss of confidence in the judiciary, the ability of the Court to exercise the judicial power, and to function as the Supreme Court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
Isn’t it the fact the courts are so reticent to change their minds on a wrong opinion that truly causes the lack of confidence in the judiciary? How can a member of the court claim it is the court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law if they place previous opinions above the law? Apparently, it’s not enough for the court’s decision to be wrong, it must be really, really wrong. It seems the court is more concerned with their reputation than upholding their oath of office.
Justice Breyer wasn’t the only one to bring up politicization. Justice Sotomayor took a slightly different angle:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: — what hasn’t been at issue in the last 30 years is the line that Casey drew of viability. There has been some difference of opinion with respect to undue burden, but the right of a woman to choose, the right to control her own body, has been clearly set for — since Casey and never challenged.
You want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different. Fifteen justices over 50 years have — or I should say 30 since Casey have reaffirmed that basic viability line. Four have said no, two of the members of this Court. But 15 justices have said yes, of varying political backgrounds.
Now the sponsors of this bill, the House bill, in Mississippi, said we’re doing it because we have new justices. The newest ban that Mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the Senate sponsors said we’re doing it because we have new justices on the Supreme Court.
Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
The question of when a child in the womb receives legal protection has been the central issue since Roe was decided in 1973, almost 50 years ago. While the Roe case, later reaffirmed by Casey, set that milestone at the point of viability, that only settled the controversy in the minds of the justices. Every year since the Roe decision thousands of people per year have demonstrated on the steps of the Supreme Court their unwillingness to accept the court’s decision. Justice Sotomayor asks if the court will survive the stench of the perception that their interpretation of the Constitution is merely a political act. Since everyone currently on the court had to pledge fidelity to Roe v. Wade as part of their confirmation in the Senate, I would say they have been living under that stench for almost 50 years. The question I have is, will this country survive the stench of denying constitutionally protected rights to the most vulnerable among us simply to appease a political party?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Virtually every state defines a brain death as death. Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli. There’s about 40 percent of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil. There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. So I don’t think that a response to — by a fetus necessarily proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness. – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oral Arguments
Justice Sotomayor has received some very harsh criticism for this question, but I think it’s an important one. If the Constitution says you cannot be deprived of life without due process, which happens to be my legal argument against abortion, figuring out when life begins would be an important step. Sotomayor claims that 40 percent of brain-dead people react to stimuli and have spontaneous acts. Does that statement hold up? Merriam-Webster defines brain death as the final cessation of activity in the central nervous system especially as indicated by a flat electroencephalogram for a predetermined length of time. – Brain Death – Merriam Webster
If there is no activity in the central nervous system, then there can be no spontaneous actions. Since a flat electroencephalogram may not rule out reflexive movements similar to the touching of a foot, Justice Sotomayor seems to have a point. So I searched federal law for a definition of “brain death”, but could not find one. This makes sense since the power to define medical conditions was never delegated to the United States. However, I did find it in the Mississippi Code Annotated:
An individual who has sustained either (a) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or (b) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards. – Determination of Death – Miss. Code Ann. § 41-36-3
There has been medical evidence that children in the womb react to stimuli, but is that enough to prove life? If the reactions are merely reflexive, such as flinching from pain, proof of life might be questionable. According to the Mayo Clinic, by 16 weeks gestation, the baby’s eyes and limbs move on their own. This spontaneous movement shows activity in the baby’s brain. Furthermore, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute:
A recent review of the evidence concludes that from the 15th week of gestation onward, “the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus. It is necessary to apply adequate analgesia to prevent the suffering of the fetus.” – Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain – Charlotte Lozier Institute
If, at 15 weeks gestation, it is necessary to protect the baby from suffering, then doesn’t the baby also deserve the protection of their life? There have even been reports of the baby in the womb attempting to get away from the abortionists’ tools. If the child in the womb has the consciousness to attempt to escape from danger, can we not agree that it is alive and deserving of our protection?
There was so much more in these oral arguments that I do not have the space to deal with them here. The question of undue burden is the opposition to abortion merely a religious view, the relative safety of abortions compared to giving birth, even the assertion of Justice Sotomayor that the supreme court has the final word on what is constitutional, are all worthy of further study. Whether I cover those topics in another article or not, I will certainly review the court’s decision when it is released. Regardless of where you stand on the topic, it is clear that the question of abortion will not be leaving the social discussion any time soon.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.