Mississippi Puts Roe v. Wade Before SCOTUS Again
Mississippi Puts Roe v. Wade Before SCOTUS Again
Thanks to the challenge by the Mississippi attorney general, the Supreme Court has the chance to look critically once again at their Roe v. Wade ruling.
For those who haven’t been following this latest case, Mississippi passed a law that banned all elective abortions after 15 weeks gestation. The last remaining abortion clinic in the state challenged that law, and the Supreme Court agreed to consider ONLY one part of the law for their case. The left, naturally, lost their minds when SCOTUS agreed to even hear the case, and they have now gone off the deep end. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch filed a brief in the case, pointing out that Roe v. Wade, and the follow-up case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, should both be reconsidered and their precedent overruled.
“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” Mississippi argued. “Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”
Even if there were policy reasons to allow women the right to end pregnancy in 1973, the state argued that times had changed.”
“The march of progress has left Roe and Casey behind,” Mississippi said in the brief. “Those cases maintained that an unwanted pregnancy could doom women to ‘a distressful life and future,’ that abortion is a needed complement to contraception, and that viability marked a sensible point for when state interests in unborn life become compelling.”
But “today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability,” the state argues.”
Mississippi’s argument is a completely compelling one on the scientific level. Roe v. Wade drew a line around “viability.” The obvious point becomes that “viability” in 1973 and “viability” in 2021 are no longer the same thing. Those scientific advancements, wrapped up in the letters “NICU” (neonatal intensive care unit), have seen babies, who would have never had a chance 50 years ago, leave the hospital and LIVE. The youngest preemie to survive is now recognized by Guinness World Records as Richard Hutchinson, who was born on June 5, 2020, at 21 weeks 2 days gestation, beating the previous record from 1987 by three days. Preemie births, even micro preemies (born before 26 weeks gestation) have benefited from the massive leaps in scientific advancement over the last 50 years to the point where these tiny children have not only the chance to survive, but thrive. Contrast that with what seems like an incredible story today – the death of little Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. His birth and death – currently, he is the last child born to a sitting president – is remembered as a mere footnote of 1963, considering that his father was assassinated only a few months later. But if he had been born today, Patrick Kennedy would likely have lived. The baby boy was born at 34 weeks gestation. In today’s world of neonatal medicine, even with his diagnosed respiratory distress, he would have survived. But it was the catalyst of his death that pushed neonatal research forward. So many parents have no idea that their preemies had the chance to live because of one tiny child who is buried at Arlington next to his parents.
Mississippi is making the case that Roe v. Wade is not only a legal fiction created to make a “right” to abortion out of whole cloth, but that it is now scientifically out-of-date. Will the court bite at the chance to overturn it? Personally, I find it highly unlikely, especially so long as John Roberts is chief justice. But what if they did?
Well, despite the panic of the hard left, abortion would not be “outlawed” in the United States. As with all issues not directly outlined in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment would apply here, meaning that each state would be able to create their own abortion laws. This would make yet another obvious difference between blue and red states. Many liberal states already had laws, or have passed more laws to keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned. Conservative states, who are passing “heartbeat” laws or “trigger” bills to limit or ban abortions, would also have that right. Abortion would be akin to the way marijuana is treated now – legal in some places, illegal in others, but with a federal government with little say to interfere with what states decide to do or not do.
Again, this is a whole lot of speculation, mostly because I don’t believe the current makeup of the Supreme Court would actually have the intestinal and legal fortitude to untwist the knot created by Roe v. Wade. It is more likely that Mississippi gets a limited win, but not a broader one, since SCOTUS is only taking part of their challenge under consideration. Still, any bar to “free and unfettered access” to abortion is always cause for the left to lose it. It’s as if they know how morally insecure they are, and they cover it up with screams of “MY RIGHTS” while looking far, far away from the little faces of those who came healthy and whole out of the NICU.