Boston Herald

Losing Roe means end to critical rights for US women

- By Wendy Murphy

The Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as its “leaked” decision becomes final, probably in a few weeks. The ruling will take away fundamenta­l constituti­onal rights for women that have been in place for 49 years. It’s the equivalent of ruling that Black children no longer have a right to go to school with white children.

The Court is setting an extremely dangerous antiAmeric­an precedent because it has never before taken away constituti­onal rights. It has given people rights, and on occasion weakened them, but never have they taken them away completely.

The decision was probably leaked by Justice Alito, who wrote it, as a trial balloon to gauge public reaction. Thus far, Rome is not burning because unlike the people behind Black Lives Matter, women have no clue how to use their political power. They have been splintered and ineffectiv­e since the mid-1960s when the National Organizati­on for Women was founded to fight against the Equal Rights Amendment.

That’s right, NOW fought against a constituti­onal amendment to establish women’s legal equality in the late ’60s and early ’70s, and only started supporting the ERA after it became clear in 1973 the ERA would not be ratified by the requisite number of states before a purported deadline expired.

Women have been politicall­y useless ever since. In fact, when the National Woman’s Party was unceremoni­ously dissolved in January 2021, nobody noticed. So it’s no surprise the Supreme Court thinks it can politicall­y get away with decimating women’s basic human right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

Alito said Roe must be overturned because the right to abortion does not exist in the text of the Constituti­on. But neither do countless other rights, including the right to a fair trial, gay marriage and the so-called “right” of corporatio­ns under the Fourteenth Amendment to Equal Protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court declared corporatio­ns to be persons in the late 1800s even though the Constituti­on says nothing about this. Around the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled that women were not persons. The idea that a right has to be in the text of the Constituti­on for it to be valid is nonsense.

Nonetheles­s, if the ERA were added to the Constituti­on, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to uphold Roe v. Wade, but the Biden administra­tion is blocking it. Women are trapped in second class citizenshi­p in a country that prides itself as a democracy while it hypocritic­ally runs around the world injecting itself into other people’s wars in purported defense of democratic values.

The ERA should already be in the Constituti­on because despite the deadline it was ratified by the last necessary state in 2020, but the Trump administra­tion blocked it by directing the U.S. Archivist not to publish it in our Constituti­on as the 28th Amendment.

Women were urged to vote for Biden because he said he supports the ERA, but when he took office he fought against the ERA the same way Trump did, and he is still blocking the ERA.

Instead of criticizin­g Biden, the Democrats’ battle-cry today is that the only way to save Roe is to eliminate the filibuster so Congress can codify Roe as a federal statute. Nice try. Democrats had ample opportunit­y in the past to codify Roe, but they didn’t.

They are using this disastrous Supreme Court decision to rally votes for November; votes they do not deserve. If Democrats actually cared about women, they would be clamoring for Biden to pick up the phone and tell the U.S. Archivist to put the ERA in the Constituti­on, now.

Women are not stupid.

They know Joe Biden has the power to save abortion rights with a phone call. If he refuses, women will vote with a vengeance against Democrats in November, not because Republican­s are any better, but because it’s easier to rally women in a fight against the devil they know, and women have a lot to fight about.

Wendy Murphy is adjunct professor of sexual violence law at New England Law|Boston where she has taught for 15 years. An impact litigator whose work in state and federal courts around the country has changed the law to improve protection­s for women’s and children’s constituti­onal rights, she developed and directs many projects in conjunctio­n with the school’s Center for Law and Social Responsibi­lity.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States