Editor:
Despite what many in media, including The Journal, are now repeating (at least eight times in “After Roe,” June 30, alone), there have been absolutely no restrictions placed on anyone’s “reproductive rights” by the U.S. Supreme Court or any other legal entity here lately. Examples of reproductive rights being quashed would include things like forced sterilization and China’s One Child Policy. This is not what is occurring with the recent overturning of Roe. It is in fact non-reproductive choices that are being taken away. Distinctions like this are important, especially if, as The Journal reports, abortion rights will «literally be on the ballot in California in November with a measure that … would enshrine ‹reproductive freedom› in the state Constitution.»
Effective legal arguments and laws are funny like that.
D. Lamar Hudson, Briceland
Related Stories
After Roe
This article appears in Quantifying Impact.
To be fair, the definition of reproductive rights is being conflated into multiple issues and meanings. The Supremes used States Rights to invalidate a juditial reading which created rights under Roe. Those rights should have been legislated, not interpreted, the failure there is with congress. As it is with Privacy and a host of other issues.
Still, I’m not interested in having several of the Supremes dictate a version of religious values on me or anyone else, particularly using their interpretation of the diety they worship. Separate issues without doubt, even if most of us would assert the court was not interested in the States Rights issue at all, only in ditating their religion on others, using States Rights as the means to the ends.
If you are poor, cant travel out of state, live in an anti abortion forced birth state, and dont know your pregnant by six weeks, you are fucked. The supreme court has aided and abetted an American version of Sharia Law, the Handmaid’s tale come to life. Forced Vasectomy is the only real answer to free women from this draconian tyranny