Abortion in the United States: the country is not ready for this reverse

Imagine if each state was free to choose whether to allow blacks and whites to marry. Some states would allow such marriages; others probably not. The laws would be a mixed bag and interracial couples would suffer, legally relegated to second-class status depending on where they lived.

This seems like an unthinkable scenario in 2022. This is because in 1967 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that banning interracial marriage, as 16 states still did, violates the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.

“According to our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not to marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be violated by the state,” the court said in Loving v. Virginia.

More than half a century later, Amare is considered one of the great judgments of the court yet he was not universally admired at the time. The southern states obeyed only reluctantly; Alabama did not lift the ban on interracial marriage until 2000.

This is the point of having a supreme federal constitution; the warranties and rights in that document apply to all Americans equally, wherever they live.

The judicial system, and in particular the Supreme Court, exist to protect these rights when state and local authorities refuse to do so.

Many of those who oppose Roe v. Wade, and even some who support him, argue that the 1973 ruling disrupted an ongoing debate on abortion, a debate that should have been allowed in states, many of which had long since banned abortion.

This is one of the main justifications of the majority of the Supreme Court justices, ready to overturn Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that kept Roe’s main stake with some restrictions.

Fundamental rights

The problem with this reasoning is that, as in Amare, leaving the issue to individual states and the political process means this millions of Americans will be denied their fundamental rights, in this case, the right of women to decide what happens inside their bodies.

The draft opinion relies heavily on the lack of mention of abortion in the Constitution and therefore argues that the document cannot underlie the right to terminate a pregnancy.

The Constitution also says nothing about interracial marriage, but that hasn’t stopped judges from finding in the 14th amendment a guarantee that no couple can be treated differently due to the color of their skin.

In summary, constitutional rights are meaningless unless they are enforced throughout the country. That is why the Supreme Court decided as Loving v. Virginia and Roe v. Wade. These rights are inherent in the Constitution, although they are not explicit in it.

The principle is clear: women and men should have the same control over their bodies as many Americans believed in 1973 and as most do today. Yet the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is taken away because five members of the current Supreme Court don’t like it.

Congress has repeatedly failed to codify the Roe and Casey protections into federal law despite various efforts, not only by Democrats but also by two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

The best Democrats are now planning a vote on an abortion rights bill that they know has zero chance of being passed. This is an empty gesture, coming after years of the Democratic Party failing to deliver meaningful leadership on reproductive freedom despite clear warning signs that Roe was in danger.

Joe Biden’s responsibility

President Joe Biden, as party leader, has an obligation to take the threat to constitutional rights seriously of Americans doing everything possible to protect access to abortion where it still exists.

The White House can encourage regulators to make it easier for women to obtain drug abortions and over-the-counter contraceptives, challenge state laws that restrict access to drug abortions, and rent federal property to abortion providers. This would at least demonstrate a commitment to the issue, even if legislative options are limited.

Usually, the prospects for reproductive freedom are bleak. In 13 states, “trigger” laws will ban abortions automatically or very quickly after Roe’s repeal, as seems highly likely. In about a dozen other states, lawmakers are preparing to severely restrict access to abortions, if not effectively ban them, as Texas already did without Supreme Court interference.

The result: within months, abortion could be illegal in more than half of the states. The anti-abortion movement does not stop there. Efforts are already underway to enforce a national abortion ban as Republicans take back the White House and Congress, which could happen in 2025.

The battle in the States

For the foreseeable future, the real battle for reproductive freedom will be fought in states, by ordinary Americans and their state and local representatives, who are trying to protect this basic right while they can. This means, first of all, ensuring greater access.

California lawmakers are moving quickly to pass a package of laws that would make their state, the most populous in the country, also one of the most accessible to women seeking to exercise their reproductive freedom.

Those most in need of abortions are often the least able to afford them. States that want to protect reproductive freedom are helping pay for the procedure and travel to get it, costs that can easily run into the thousands of dollars and are prohibitive for many women.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the percentage of abortion services in Illinois and New York provided to non-residents has already increased dramatically over the past decade, a trend fueled by rising abortion restrictions in others. States.

All laws are subject to overturn as the political winds change, of course. That is why abortion rights groups in some states focus on their own constitutions.

In New York, abortion rights advocates, including Governor Kathy Hochul, are pushing for a constitutional amendment to be presented to New York voters in 2024 to protect reproductive rights should the state legislature fall into the hands of Republicans. New York. In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer last month asked her state’s Supreme Court to rule that the Michigan Constitution affirmatively protects the right to abortion.

Finally, himstates in favor of the choice are realizing that they must play a strategic defense when it comes to protecting abortion providers, and possibly aborting women, from states that go beyond their borders to impose their anti-abortion laws on everyone else.

Decisions like these cannot be left in the hands of the states. A national standard is required. That national standard, at least for a few more weeks, is Roe v. Wade modified from Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

These two failures are not perfect, but for all their flaws, they have achieved a delicate balance that reflects the public’s complex position on a morally tense issue. Most Americans don’t want these cases overturnedwith an overwhelming majority saying abortion should not be banned outright.

If you thought Roe v. Wade has led to discord and division, just wait for it to disappear.

This text was published by the New York Times Editorial Board