This is not the platform upon which we had hoped to launch our party, but sometimes the best laid plans are disrupted by circumstance. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, which overturned Roe v Wade, has already curtailed the rights of women in 13 states, according to the Washington Post. These states have “trigger laws” already in place that come into force immediately or within 30 days of Roe being overturned, and it is expected that eventually severe restrictions and outright bans on abortion will exist in half the states of the nation.
The language of Justice Alito’s majority opinion, when connected to Justice Thomas’s concurrence, places many other rights that Americans have taken for granted over the past five decades on dangerous ground. The Roe decision was not based on the right to abortion itself, but upon a right to privacy that is implied in the US Constitution without ever using the word — as surely as the original language of the document also protected human slavery without ever using the term directly.
Other precedents now called into question by this decision and the body of constitutional law it descended from include:
- Loving vs Virginia, which struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage;
- Obergefell v Hodges, which struck down a state’s right to refuse to recognize marriages between same sex partners;
- Griswold v Connecticut, which struck down laws against contraception;
- Lawrence v Texas, striking down laws restricting sexual activities between consenting adults
Coming immediately on the heels of its decision to overturn the case law mandating Miranda warnings, this Supreme Court has served noticed that none of the traditional freedoms or protections won by civil rights activists, feminists, and civil libertarians over the last century are exempt from their judicial activism, crafted to pander to an extreme fringe of American politics. Indeed, Justice Thomas has already invited more cases to come forward on these issues.
Some may defend this decision as a victory for “states’ rights,” but the reality is that neither states nor nations have “rights.” Only people do, and the state governments should have no more power to ignore those rights than the national government. “State’s rights” is now as it has been in the past an esoteric and legalistic moralization of tyranny and oppression.
Delaware is a state that is unlikely to further erode the privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights of women by joining in these bans, but we should not delude ourselves into believing the fight will not be brought here. Interview after interview with jubilant anti-abortion leaders found them saying, “This is only the beginning,” and promising to take their crusade to “every state in the Union.” We must be prepared to hold the line.
Equally disturbing is that many women in northern Delaware receive their OB/GYN services across the border in Pennsylvania, which appears to be a likely target for a complete abortion ban, depending on the outcome of this year’s gubernatorial election. If so, it will be necessary to face the fact that available services for Delaware residents will be significantly curtailed. Keystone Party candidate Nicole Shultz may help to forestall that possibility but the availability of this care should not be subject to the shifting politics of our neighbors.
There are many ways the people of Delaware can take direct action to mitigate the harm to come. We welcome you to share your ideas with us and we will share ours in a post tomorrow…
