I don't have the time or energy at the moment to get into the long story of this, but the recent Supreme Court ruling did not so much overturn Roe v. Wade as follow a (in my opinion) flawed interpretation of the Constitution (especially the 10th and 14th Amendments) which changes the jurisdiction regarding any individual's rights that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution and its Amendments (again, ignoring the intent behind the 10th and 14th Amendments). The danger is that this can repeal rights for a wide range of individuals based on the reasoning given for the ruling (this is not a Slippery Slope fallacy, some of those rights were directly mentioned in Justice Thomas's defense of the ruling). The solution is to finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
I had long considered the ERA to be a redundant, and thus unnecessary, version of the 14th Amendment. However, it turns out that a Supreme Court with an exactingly strict interpretation of the Amendment can (and just has) ruled that it only applies to "privileges" (i.e. rights) specifically outlined in the Constitution and its Amendments. The ERA (being a more modern document) is more specific in those rights and privileges are.
At least, that's my interpretation. Perhaps someone with a more extensive understanding of our legal system could shed light on it.
A point of clarification: I am still unapologetically pro-life and believe that abortion is an abomination, victimizing both child and mother. However, to me, being pro-life means doing better than making laws of punishment, but actively seeking the well-being of all people. In this case, I believe that the recent ruling does not do what most people (on both sides) think that it does, and instead creates a clear danger to our republic and our rights as its citizens.
I had long considered the ERA to be a redundant, and thus unnecessary, version of the 14th Amendment. However, it turns out that a Supreme Court with an exactingly strict interpretation of the Amendment can (and just has) ruled that it only applies to "privileges" (i.e. rights) specifically outlined in the Constitution and its Amendments. The ERA (being a more modern document) is more specific in those rights and privileges are.
At least, that's my interpretation. Perhaps someone with a more extensive understanding of our legal system could shed light on it.
A point of clarification: I am still unapologetically pro-life and believe that abortion is an abomination, victimizing both child and mother. However, to me, being pro-life means doing better than making laws of punishment, but actively seeking the well-being of all people. In this case, I believe that the recent ruling does not do what most people (on both sides) think that it does, and instead creates a clear danger to our republic and our rights as its citizens.
RSS Feed
