Making the Roe v Wade decision clear by Susan Grimsdell

The poverty factor

It should be a constitutional requirement that all decisions coming out of the Supreme court should be phrased in specific and honest terms.  For example, the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion does not apply to all women and the wording should make that clear.  It will only affect women who are poor.  Well-off women will simply take a trip to a place where they can get an abortion.  The ruling should read “abortion will be considered unconstitutional for women who are poor”.   I wonder how that would go down with the squadrons of people who shout that they are the ones who have the right to decide what happens to someone else’s body.

The hypocrisy factor

Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe, the plaintiff in the case of Roe v Wade. In later life she became anti-abortion

What seems most illogical is the claim of the anti-abortionists that what they care about is “innocent unborn babies” while the “babies” of their wealthy friends are the very ones who won’t get born.  They are really saying they only care about the “innocent unborn babies” of the families who live in the slums, who have absolutely no way of raising the money to fly off to a state or country that allows abortion.  They don’t care about “babies” forever unborn to women like themselves, well-dressed, well educated, well-to-do, because they know with absolute certainty that if one of them got pregnant and having a baby did not suit, they would go off and get an abortion, no question, no problem.  We can be certain that if the daughter, for example, of one of those Justices inadvertently got pregnant, they would be on the first plane to California or Canada. 

The hypocrisy reminds me of the situation in New Zealand many years ago when it was revealed that one of the most fervent anti-abortionists had herself had an abortion at an earlier time when obviously having a baby did not suit her lifestyle. 

The callous factor

Henry Wade, Dallas County District Attorney, defendant in Roe v Wade

There is also the question of foetuses when the woman miscarries.  Are these “innocent children” too?  Why are the anti-abortion crowd not demanding a coronial inquiry when there is a miscarriage?  How else can it be determined that the death of the “child” was not murder.  Let’s get a little bit of consistency here.  Since 25% of women do miscarry at one stage of their lives, the legal system could come into a bit of overload, but I doubt that anti-abortionists would care about that, any more than they care what’s going to happen to the tens of thousands of babies born to women who did not want them and could not afford to support them.  I know one thing for certain, the anti-abortionists will not be there for those women or their babies. 

Let us know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: