In The Pursuit Of Happiness

Isaiah Hunter In the Pursuit of Happiness “Voting for Reproductive Freedom”, Editorial published Nov. 9, 2008 Question at Issue: Should the Supreme Courts decision on Roe v. Wade be overturned? Argument: The decision to legalize abortion by The Supreme Court, as interpreted in the case of Roe v. Wade, should not be overturned because the decision upholds a women’s right to privacy in her childbearing decisions. Assumption: Any decision that upholds a women’s right to privacy in her childbearing decisions should not be overturned. Our society values privacy: we build doors for our restrooms, use passwords for our emails, and tellers whisper our banking account balance. Is it so strange, then, for women to want the same privacy when consulting their physician about child bearing options? Roe v. Wade, reached after two years of Supreme Court arguments, guarantees women that right. It also denies the states to delve into our personal lives without giving a good justification

Hunter

2

to the Supreme Court. Should this decision be overturned? In 1971 Norma McCorvey, known as Jane Roe, challenged Texas after she was raped and became pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion, but at the time it was illegal in her state as well as many others. Traveling to a state where she could obtain a safe and legal abortion was well out of her financial means. She then sued Texas claiming that it was unconstitutional for a state to intervene in her healthcare decisions. Texas denied her claims several times which resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled the Texas statutes were too vague and had no grounds to criminalize abortion. It found that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause a woman’s right to privacy supersedes undue restriction on her childbearing decisions. However, after the first trimester of pregnancy an abortion is substantially more dangerous to the well being of the mother. The state may regulate only certain aspects of the abortion during the second trimester. When the third trimester hits the fetus is viable (meaning it can survive either independently or artificially outside of the womb). At this

Hunter

3

point the Supreme Court decided to allow the state to restrict abortion as it sees fit during this trimester. The battle rages on in the media, in the courts, and in living rooms across America, over this controversial decision. The New York Times recently published an editorial entitled “Voting for Reproductive Freedom”. It examined the decision of voters in three states where Roe v. Wade was challenged. In California, voters voted against a mandate of parental notification. Voters of South Dakota shot down a measure trying to criminalize abortion. Confronting the real heart of the issue, Colorado rejected an initiative which sought to grant fertilized eggs the same rights that a person inherits once born. The Supreme Court chose not to partake in a determination of when the unborn should be considered a person. An excerpt from their dissent notes: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a

Hunter

4

position to speculate as to the answer." This confirms the role of the court is to interpret the Constitution, not what it means to be a person. In a recent interview with a member of the Associated Press, Arizona senator John McCain proclaimed that the decision of Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He said Supreme Court justices should “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States”. What sen. McCain and many other advocates for a review of Roe v. Wade fail to understand is that the Framers never intended for the Constitution to be interpreted word for word. They knew that over time, situations would arise that the Constitution could never directly address. This is why they left wiggle room for the courts to, in their best judgment, subjectively interpret the law using common sense. We have amendments to the constitution that fulfill this purpose and the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted in the decision of Roe v. Wade to carry out the law. The debate on abortion frequently centers on the definition of human life. Human life, as defined by Black’s Medical Dictionary, is “any living

Hunter

5

cell or collection of living cells that contain DNA from the species homosapiens.” This definition includes a fetus, as well as an eye lash, a blood cell, and cancer. The point at which we become a person is a matter of individual belief. A “pro-life” stance typically encompasses the idea that a person is a person at the time of conception. Their logic is that this “person” should be given the same freedoms and rights we all enjoy while restricting the rights of Miss Roe. Those of ”pro-choice” generally contend that we achieve personhood at birth. Regardless if one identifies with being pro-choice or pro-life there are issues that must be considered. As a culture we have advanced the way in which sex is viewed, but have been lacking in the way it is taught. Sexual education is an important factor when discussing abortion and needs to be taught in a manner that encourages open and honest discussion. Techniques for safe sex and the consequences of failing to employ them need to be a primary focus. Guttmacher, an institute that advances sexual and reproductive health, recently released a report that reveals more than half of all women in

Hunter

6

America who become pregnant claim that the pregnancy was unintended. Within that 50 percent, 40 percent had an abortion. Most contraceptives have a success rate of 93 percent. The consequences of unprotected sex need to be drilled into our education system. It cannot be ignored that abortions are never desired. They are costly and place a heavy emotional tax on the woman. Many women, who had an abortion in their teens, feel a sense of loss and regret once they have matured. This regret however is not because of their decision, but rather that they ended up in a situation where it was required. Only the woman who is pregnant has the right to make such a decision; in the end she alone will bear all consequences. The decision on Roe v. Wade is one of the most monumental and controversial in American history. Freedom is to be treasured; it was fought for to escape religious persecution, won by the North to abolish slavery, and then defended against in the case of Roe v. Wade. Any decision that upholds a women’s right to privacy in her childbearing decisions should not be

Hunter

7

overturned. The state, as enforced by the Supreme Court, needs good reason to invade our privacy. There is no reason for a state to deny us the right of confidentiality when we consulting our physician. What lies in the wake of the decision on Roe v. Wade and its subsequent challenges is one of hope. This perseveres through our darkest moments inspiring all to battle the unjust and conquer overwhelming fear. It is comforting to know that America is still a place where freedom and privacy are valued, but we must not forget the sacrifices that allow us to enjoy them. Miss Roe had the courage to stand up and fight an oppressing law that restricted her constitutional right. Gen. Colin Powell once said, "You can't make someone else's choices. You shouldn't let someone else make yours."

Hunter

8