Thoughts about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

I have a decent understanding of both the pro-choice and pro-life side of the abortion debate. Because this is rare in the modern world, I have tried to avoid taking sides. Unfortunately, the pro-choice community has made this very difficult. They frequently lie about the views of the pro-choice community, and they have absurdly framed the debate as a war on women. No rational person is going to believe that a woman protecting what she perceives as the life of a little girl is doing so out of a hatred of women.

The recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which effectively overturned Roe v. Wade has only added to my frustrations with the pro-choice community, and I feel like I need to vent. Regardless of which side you are on regarding abortions, this never should have come from the Supreme Court. In Roe v. Wade, the justices clearly decided how they wanted to rule then creatively interpreted the constitution to back their intent. It was always a stretch to insist that the right to privacy implied by due process required all 50 states to legalize abortions. There is a term for the ruling in Roe v. Wade. It's called judicial activism.

What does the constitution really say? In the United States, the bulk of the power was always supposed to be at the state level. We even have an amendment, the tenth, that was included to protect the states. If it's not in the constitution, it's not a federal issue. Since abortions are not included in the constitution, Roe v. Wade was clearly a bad ruling.

It has become a common defense of Roe v. Wade to insist that because the Supreme Court 's job is to interpret the constitution, Roe v. Wade established that abortions are a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court does not have the power to change the constitution. There is a difference between a skewed interpretation of what the constitution says and what's actually in the document. Oddly enough, these same people continue to refer to abortions as a constitutionally protected right now that the Supreme Court says otherwise.

There is one element of truth that I want to highlight to this flawed viewpoint. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases brought before them. They are not supposed to rule on the popularity. Whether or not this was the right decision has nothing to do with the American majority's opinions. Insisting that a majority of Americans did not want Roe v. Wade is completely irrelevant.

The issue here is not pro-choice versus pro-life. It's actually judicial activism versus the constitution. Personally, I never liked the idea of being forced to follow laws created by those who ignore the law. For that reason, I am openly siding with the constitution.

A lot of people have ridiculed Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds that it's a power grab and that the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to change the law like that. How do you think this all started? Does anyone honestly believe that letting states decide is a bigger power grab than dictating law in all 50 states?

A frequent solution to this ruling provided by the pro-choice community is to pass a law in Congress. Although this isn't as bad as legislating from the bench, it's reliant on the same mistake. According to the constitution, this is not a federal issue. This is why I will openly oppose any efforts to pass a federal law to legalize abortions nationwide. Similarly, I will openly oppose any efforts for a federal ban on abortions.

The constitution was written over 200 years ago. The writers of the constitution were neither perfect nor psychics. They knew this. I have long insisted that the most underrated thing about the constitution is that we were provided with the possibility of changing the constitution. Instead of arbitrarily ignoring the parts of the constitution we don't like, there is a legal path for the government to address abortions. Yes, it's difficult, but it's the right way. If we want the federal government involved in the legality of abortions, we must amend the constitution.

Through all of this, Democrats are claiming that Republicans are pushing the unprecedented idea of rolling back rights. Abortions should have never been treated as a federal right, but there's an even bigger problem with this argument. The Democrats have been actively attacking rights and freedoms for decades. I have already vented about some of the constraints I have seen from the Democratic party. Rolling back rights is neither unprecedented nor a valid reason to vote for the Democrats.