Roe Re-decided

Frankly I don't see the difference between the Fed's regulating conduct, which the far right so often screams about, and a state's doing so. The Supreme Court's now deciding that it has no say in the matter, and that it should have never had a say, will only serve to create MORE government control at the local level over not just abortion, but a slew of other matters. In other words, we needed this Court to do its job: which was first to honor precedent as it has evolved; and second, to declare emphatically what the limitations of the government are to regulate conduct (in other words, to serve as a CHECK OR BALANCE ON POWERS).

It is not legislative in scope to do so. The role of the Court is to DEFINE those limitations by ruling on what the states can and cannot do UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, which is what Roe did. The Court's deciding not to do its job will result in SOME states doing more of what is not theirs to do: INTERPRET THE LAW AS THEY SEE IT; and a lack of uniformity, somewhat analogous to the chaos that existed prior to the Civil War.

I question to what extent RELIGIOUS BELIEFS played a role in the recent Supreme Court draft/decision to overturn Roe (all conduct is purposeful, regardless of whether it is played off as being "beyond our purview"). To what extent will a state's decision to "protect the unborn" extend to those activities which could POTENTIALLY (as in, looking way beyond conception) lead to a child's being born? The conduct of couples comes to mind; decisions regarding the most private aspects of people's lives. What if a state determines that certain lifestyles, or unions, or choices, are "not in the best interests of children YET TO BE BORN"?

The decision to terminate a pregnancy has to be an excruciatingly difficult one. And as a believer (Christian), I believe that all life originates from God. But I also believe that the government should NOT compel acts of conscience ("Barnett Principle"), which is what, I believe, takes place at the earliest stages of a woman's pregnancy when she decides whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. (We can discourage her from doing so, suggest other alternatives, but SHOULD NOT FORCE HER. THIS DOES NOT WORK IN AMERICA.)

"The Constitution doesn't mention travel or sexual activity" (Feinstein, "Law 101," 3rd ed.). Yet so many decisions that people make are tied to the same (they have to fall under something-i.e. a legal category.) And the state unquestionably has an interest in the fetus, especially when it becomes viable (i.e. "capable of living outside its mother's womb") (ibid). But now that Roe will no longer be "precedent upon precedent," as described by the justices who are now doing away with the same (I believe, on religious principles), private choices that people make will now ALSO fall under the purview or "INTERESTS" of the respective states (those with "trigger laws"), in a de facto, somewhat ambiguous category, only to have to address them (i.e. place them under a legal category) all over again. The difference being, while in limbo, THEY ARE NOW REGULABLE.

The "slack" or "vacuum" that the absence of Roe will leave, I believe, on OTHER PRIVATE ACTS and acts of conscience will not remain unaffected, as the justices are claiming, but will, in effect, have served to ESTABLISH A RELIGION, which is what this decision was about all along. It is a religion that I also love, but one which becomes something other than what it is supposed to be when its precepts are used with the intention or purpose of attempting to CONTROL others, as it has been done so many times before.

(The views expressed herein are my own).