COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL.
The "Right" To Choose OR the Bill of Rights Which Is It?
Just to clear the air, a person always has the right to choose between A and B. Even when A is illegal a person still can choose it. A Woman’s choice to maintain a pregnancy or end it was never the issue in Dobbs. Ever. The sole issue in Dobbs, the case that sparked the latest round of irrational protest, never had a single thing to do with a woman’s “right” to choose whether to have a baby that she found herself carrying or not. Dobbs was about the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What is Dobbs and why does it involve the infamous Roe v. Wade — the 1973 Supreme Court Case that conferred a “constitutional right” to have an abortion despite existing state laws?
When Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion provider in Jackson, Mississippi challenged Mississippi’s new law that greatly restricts when a woman can have an abortion, its attorney’s cited Roe v. Wade which they argued, established the “right” to have an abortion without restriction up to the time when a fetus was considered to be able to survive outside the womb.
It was, therefore, natural for the Supreme Court to reexamine Roe v. Wade to determine if Jackson Women’s Health Organization was correct in its assertion that Roe v. Wade over-rode Mississippi’s new law and was consistent with the US Constitution.
The sole job of the Supreme Court of the United States is to determine whether laws are supported by the United States Constitution and that is precisely what the Court did in Dobbs. When they compared Dobbs to the U.S. Constitution it was clear that they also had to examine Roe v. Wade. Upon examination, a majority of the Justices determined that the U.S. Constitution was silent on the matter of abortion which meant that there was no Constitutional basis upon which Roe v. Wade should have succeeded. None the less, the Berger Court manufactured such a basis and the “constitutional right to abortion” became law. The majority of justices in the Roberts’ Court recognized Roe v. Wade’s inherent conflict with the Tenth Amendment and overturned Roe v. Wade decision.
Did this ruling end abortion in the United States?
No.
While some states like Kentucky and Ohio had written laws which were subsequently passed by their state legislatures and had been signed by their governors or that had veto proof majorities, those legislative acts would not become law until or unless Roe v. Wade was overturned. And while those laws make access to abortion more difficult and some virtually impossible they do not end the practice. Other states have ended the practice all together UNLESS it is in the rare circumstance in which a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or there is a fetal abnormality of such gravity that the child would not survive if carried to term or is likely to die in utero. On the other hand, over the years access to abortions had become much easier in other states such as California, Illinois, and New York.
But the point of Dobbs is that when the U.S. Constitution is silent on a matter it is in the purview of the various states as to how its citizens will address it.
Thus when the U.S. Constitution is silent on a matter but a right has been established despite that silence — judicial review is proper and warranted. That is why Justice Thomas suggested that the decision in Obergefell be reviewed. Obergefell is the case that established same sex marriage as a “constitutional right”. The majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy presented a convoluted argument that attempted to circumvent the fact that the U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage and, therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment it should be a matter for the various states which it was at the time that James Obergefell sought to have the law changed.
Again, SCOTUS is not contemplating striking out at same sex marriage but rather the intentional disregard for the US Constitution and its power limiting Tenth Amendment.
There is a third case that deserves a mention: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Mr. Kennedy, a high school football coach, had a habit of praying mid-field after each game. Kennedy’s prayer was solely his and he made no requirement or suggestion that others join him. The Bremerton School District argued that Kennedy was acting in his official capacity as a government employee and thus was banned from praying on school property or time. The Court sided with Coach Kennedy stating that when he prayed at mid-field that he did so as a citizen and not an employee of the school district. Therefore, the First Amendment guaranteed his right to the free exercise of his religion and his termination was unlawful.
These two cases more than any other in our lifetime, re-establish the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by the The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) of the U.S. Constitution. These decisions do not limit personal freedom, they strengthen it. While Dobbs reasserts the primacy of the states, Kennedy reasserts the rights of the individual to freely exercise the right to religious freedom which is established in the First Amendment.
Whether you like Donald Trump or not there is no doubt that had he not kept his promise to appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the Supreme Court abortions would have continued with virtually no restraints and socialist leaders and activists would have continued to restrict our freedoms to speak freely and to enjoy the free exercise of our religion.
Next up: West Virginia v. The EPA; the end to CDC’s reign of terror?
Union, KY
7 July, 2022