Since 1973, Roe v. Wade and later Planned Parenthood v. Casey framed the abortion narrative as a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body or as it has been whittled down “My body, my choice”. All the while the narrative has changed focus from the abortionist that commits the crime of murder. Prior to Roe v. Wade, the pregnant female, though consenting, was seldom regarded as an accomplice to that crime and was treated as a second victim of the abortionist. Not charged as an accessory but instead she became the prosecution’s most important witness providing much needed testimony against the abortionist. Uncle Eric had it right all along while the rest of the country allowed the narrative to be framed in such a way that the murdering abortionist go unnoticed.
The new Texas law S.B. No. 8 concentrates on restricting abortionists. This harkens back to legal arguments from the early 20th century when the focus was on the person killing the baby. The courts back then realized that realistically, we can never stop women from aborting children but we can take action to remove convenience from the equation. The odd part of the law is that it has no enforcement provision aside from civil liability which is open to anyone, excepting an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in the state of Texas, who wishes to pursue the action against any violator of the law.
This law came about in the midst of a “pandemic” and is being applauded by conservative voters and pundits alike. Considering the new law has sparked much talk about the Supreme Court being given this opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade which conservatives think of as a win-win resulting in no more killing babies and their concern ends there. The details don’t seem to matter to them and any negative consequences are left undiscovered. After all, the end goal is to halt the slaughter of the innocents at any cost.
You see, I believe in a person’s right to choose what they do to their own body, but for decades we have been inundated with this liberal interpretation of the act of abortion as if it were equal to the decision to undergo chemotherapy, get a facelift, or a new tattoo.
Killing though sometimes within the boundaries of the law, is also quite often a criminal act. Who can guess the mental state of the abortionists that perform these killings? I use the word killing to remove the emotion from the act. For the sake of this argument, I am not going to consider the motive of these killings, but if I were to give the abortionist the benefit of the doubt I might suggest they kill unemotionally. This, by the way, is a trait of psychopathic serial killers.
In a peculiar twist of double standards, Dr. Jack Kevorkian went to prison for what the patient’s family call an act of mercy but a jury called second degree murder after he, for the first time in his long career of assisting suicides, personally administered a lethal injection to Thomas Youk, a consenting adult. On all other occasions the patients had administered the lethal injection themselves.
When I contemplate the implications of future Supreme Court rulings on abortion, I see issues beyond abortion where we can benefit from the “My body, my choice” argument. First and foremost is the mandating of vaccinations or other medical procedures. Roe v. Wade may be the best protection we have against the government’s forced medical experimentation on the population.
Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey stand on a women’s right to choose to abort her baby. Interestingly this does not conflict with Texas’ new law which provides no state enforcement mechanism but does allow for any citizen to sue civilly the abortionist whom performs an abortion. The law allows for no consequences directed at the consenting female. The Court can uphold the new Texas law without rejecting “My body, my choice”. An action by the Court overturning Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey could lead potentially to the opening up of a huge can of worms.