In landmark pro-life ruling, US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

The United States Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision Roe v. Wade de 1973, which recognized a woman’s constitutional right to abortion and legalized it throughout the country. The judges held that the decision was made in error because the US Constitution makes no specific mention of the right to abortion.

The overturning of this decision has been expected since the leaked draft of a new decision majority of the Supreme Court. Judge Samuel Alito, 28, born in Trenton, New Jersey, wrote the text that overturns the understanding of the case Roe vs. Wade, to return to the American states the freedom to legislate on the matter.

In the decision, Alito understands that, although the Due Process Clause of 14 th Amendment can guarantee rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, they must be “deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the nation”, and “the right to abortion does not fit into this category.”

What provided for in Roe v. Wade

The decision almost 50 years ago banned all states from criminalizing abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, regardless of the reason; in the second trimester, it could be vetoed only in some cases, with a view to protecting the mother’s health; only in the third trimester, when the fetus is already considered “viable” – that is, capable of surviving outside the uterus –, states could ban abortion, but would still have to allow it if the woman’s life is at risk.

Recently, states with pro-life governors and legislators have begun passing laws that restrict access to abortion before the threshold of feasibility – of 24 to 50 weeks-, counting that such laws would be questioned in the Judiciary and hoping that some case made it to the Supreme Court, which, in turn, would have the chance to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The old pro-abortion decision has been strongly questioned since the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, on the constitutionality of a state law passed in Mississippi in 2018, which totally prohibited abortion from 15 th week of pregnancy and therefore went against Roe vs. Wade.

In debates on the matter late last year, Mississippi Attorney General Scott Stewart said that Roe and Casey “haunt the country” and have no foundation in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.

Convictions of Gazeta do Povo: Defense of life from conception

But, after all , who was Roe?

Norma McCorvey is the “Jane Roe”, of the case Roe versus Wade. As Life Site News (LSN) reported in 2013, for a long time, she was an abortion activist. In 1995, however, she abandoned her former militancy and admitted to having made up the story of 1995 which served as the basis for the most cited process in abortion decisions in the United States.

“I was convinced to lie and say that I was raped, and that I needed an abortion. It was all a lie.” In another passage, she says that she will take to the grave the burden of 50 millions of babies who were murdered.

According to the organization Human Life International, in 1972, during a speech given at the Institute of Ethics in Education, in Oklahoma, the lawyer who defended Roe , Sarah Weddington, tried to explain why she relied on the false rape accusation to get to the Supreme Court. “My conduct may not have been entirely ethical. But I did it because I thought there were good reasons”, confessed Sarah, as published by Tulsa World, the local newspaper of the state of Oklahoma, in the edition of 14 of May of the same year.

Pro-abortion protesters turned to violence

When the draft decision nullifying Roe v. Wade, in May, pro-abortion activists demonstrated around the house of Supreme Court justices, mainly the author of the text, Judge Samuel Alinto.

Anti-abortion organizations were also victims of attacks. In Wisconsin, two Molotov cocktails were thrown at the Wisconsin Family Action office on May 8. In addition to causing the fire, a message was spray-painted on a wall: “If abortion can’t be safe, neither will you be (safe).”

Two days later, a reporter from the website investigative journalist Bellingcat reported on Twitter that a group calling itself Jane’s Revenge claimed the attack and reportedly said it was “just a warning.”

Na At the time, the pro-abortion Joe Biden administration condemned the protests. “The president strongly believes in the constitutional right to protest,” said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. “But that must never include violence, threats or vandalism. Judges play an incredibly important role in our society and must be able to do their jobs without having to worry about their personal safety.”

The attacks continued. In the first half of this month, two other clinics burned down, one in New York and one in Gresham, Oregon.

Political reaction

In May, politicians from the American left also mobilized in an attempt to prevent the overthrow of the pro-abortion decision or to campaign for the midterm elections, which take place in November.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has promised to protect the right to abortion in the state Constitution. “California will not stand by as women across America are stripped of their rights and the progress so many fought for is erased,” Newsom said in a statement also signed by the state’s House and Senate leaders.

California is one of the most permissive states regarding abortion, even though it is not specified in its Constitution. The regulation in the region is framed in a personal privacy amendment of 1972. Therefore, women from other territories of the country, where restrictive laws have been passed, such as Texas and Mississippi, often travel to California to have an abortion.

The country’s president, Joe Biden, commented that he would mobilize in the face of the “continuous attack on abortion and reproductive rights.” In the Senate, Democrats even announced that they would force a vote for lawmakers to publicly take a stand on the issue. The left’s proposal was to pass a law that would protect abortion throughout the country, excluding dependence on judicial decisions.

Positioning on abortion should be reflected in the polls

Both the mobilizations that emerged before the Supreme Court decision and the upcoming regional positions in relation to abortion should be reflected in the midterm elections, at the end of the year.

“Anyone who supports abortion to the end and wants taxpayers to pay for it is not a viable candidate. And I think Democrats are going to start seeing that at the polls,” argued Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion activist group Susan B. Anthony List, in an interview with MSNBC, during the first demonstrations after the leaked draft of the judges’ decision.

As Representative Susan Wild, Democrat of Pennsylvania, opined to the New York Times, discussions about abortion can encourage voters to go to the polls. “The Supreme Court just gave us a reason for people to vote,” she commented.

Republican strategist Glen Bolger said the Supreme Court ruling could spur an anti-abortion vote. “The consensus now is that (the overthrow of Roe v. Wade) helps Democrats because it will spur turnout (of pro-abortion voters), but it can certainly also spur voter turnout. grassroots Republicans”, he pointed out, in an interview with the New York Times.

Back to top button