Roe v. Wade: Further Proof (Part IV)

Those on the right believe the anti-abortion movement is about “fetal protection”, “religious rights”, and “life begins at conception” as outlined in the famous state cases such as Rosen v. Louisiana and Steinberg v. Brown (Ohio). The Left believes the pro-abortion movement is about a “Woman’s right to control her body outweighs the rights of an embryo” and that a “woman’s body belongs to the woman themselves” as outlined in famous state cases such as Doe v. Dalton (Georgia). These are valid arguments on both sides, but the argument really comes down to the precedent set in Griswold to “protect the privacy and intimacy of family life”. The conservative argument is based on religious and moral values and they are not listed in the Constitution (Life begins at conception). The liberal argument of having control over you own body is more compelling, but it is not absolute. Many bodily activities such as prostitution and doing drugs are crimes. And who speaks for the rights of the father or the fetus if a woman’s right is absolute? No one. Hence, there is nothing in the Constitution to stop states from regulating or prohibiting a bodily issue like abortion. Since there is nothing in the Constitution about privacy, marriage, contraception, abortion or other issues involving abortion only the Griswold precedent provides some hope to the pro-abortion movement. But the statement to “protect the privacy and intimacy of family life” is broad and vague and cannot protect illegal activities such as crimes including spousal abuse, rape, and incest. A pregnant woman smoking, drinking, or doing drugs in not a protected private act since it could injure the baby. If these actions are not protected private actions then why should an act that aborts a baby be a protected private action? And anyone can argue the act of an abortion is not a privacy issue. Doctors and nurses will know about the abortion and the hospital or clinic will have a record of the abortion. In fact, anyone who sees the patient at the clinic or hospital may be able to ascertain that an abortion has taken place especially given how the figure of the mother may change. And of course, anyone seeking government funding for an abortion would not constitute a private matter. So how do we determine which private actions are protected and which are not? This is a fairly easy task. Anything that is considered controversial such as crime is not protected and anything that is not controversial such as consensual sex is protected. Abortion is controversial and it is therefore something that should not be protected by privacy. What makes abortion controversial (other than it kills a life or fetus) is that married couples and partners have lots of choices such as contraception, sterilization, and adoption to prevent abortions. In essence, abortion is a means to correct a mistake. Hence, the argument that a “woman’s body belongs to themselves” is not a fair estimation when it comes to abortion. First, if a woman got pregnant and did not intend to do so then they made a huge mistake and their decisions over their body are questionable at best. Second, abortion is a surgery and therefore the woman having an abortion will have no control over their body during an operation. Third, if abortion is funded by charity, the government, spouse, partner, or a friend then does the woman really have control over her body if she cannot afford the surgery? Finally, it is very selfish for feminists to believe that the fetus, spouse, or partner have no rights over a pregnancy. The abortion movement is about feminists garnering more rights than men. Consider how the feminist movement tried to reduce the privileges provided to veterans (mostly men) for employment and medical coverage back in the seventies. Think about the irony: Feminists demanded more rights than the men who fought for their freedom so they can protest their selfish cause. This behavior has led to our political divide and the sense of entitlement people feel they deserve for doing nothing. This behavior is why we have political correctness and why everyone gets an award for participating (losing) in competitions. The abortion movement is about having someone else pay for their irresponsible and unaccountable behavior over their bodies, but at the same time claim it is a private issue.

I am for protecting the Fundamental Rights for all citizens equally (to the equal protection clause), but I am totally against providing a group of persons more Fundamental Rights than another group such as through diversity or abortion legislation. Fundamental Rights are not supposed to be controversial. Fundamental Rights do not conflict with other Fundamental Rights such as the right to marry (means making joint decisions), the right to procreate, or the right to happiness (abortion will not make a person happy unless they are really sick). The same arguments used to elevate abortion or a woman’s right to choose as a Fundamental Right would be no different than saying cosmetic surgery is a Fundamental Right so woman can show their personalities, avoid restraint living in a body they do not like, and it will help family issues. After all, doesn’t cosmetic surgery also have a death rate lower than childbirth and it discriminates against the poor who cannot afford it? These are all the same arguments used to abort a child. A Fundamental Right is deep-rooted in American history and tradition. Abortion fails to meet this condition because it was taboo and a crime under most state statutes.

Many liberal law scholars agree that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for instance, felt that the Court should have relied upon the “equal protection clause” instead of the “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, to say that anti-abortion laws are discriminatory against women is a tough argument to make. In Roe, the plaintiffs went out of their way to point out that pregnancy only happens to women and men should have no say in the outcome of any pregnancy. So how can a law that can only apply to women be discriminatory? That is like saying all laws are discriminatory because they only apply to criminals. Besides, both approaches (equal protection or due process) fail at realizing an important aspect of the pro-abortion movement: government funding for abortions. Federal funding for abortions and individual privacy are conflicting arguments. Moreover, no Fundamental Right is an entitlement created by the government (rights come before government). This is why healthcare is not a Fundamental Right. It is our Fundamental Right to own (buy or sell) property if we choose to do so. However, other Fundamental Rights cannot be bought or sold.