Common sense absent in High Court’s abortion ruling

The Supreme Court decision which overturned Roe v Wade exceeds 200 pages. Few citizens have the legal background or expertise to understand the hundreds of cases and theories that the justices cut and pasted to support their decision. A simplified explanation of the decision is warranted.

When I was a law student, several of my classmates were brilliant. They received the highest grades, wrote the most incisive legal briefs, and many went on to judicial clerkships, prestigious law firms and even judicial appointments of their own. For a few, however, despite their intellectual superiority, there often seemed to be one quality missing — common sense.

Common sense is lacking in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade.

The concept of federalism has dominated governmental policy since the Founders drafted the Constitution. A long-standing tension exists between state control and that entrusted to the federal government. Traditionally, states retain jurisdiction over issues such as licensing, age eligibility and topics where some geographic factors warrant more local control. The division exists between federal and state legislative control unless certain rights are protected by the Constitution, which makes them applicable everywhere.

When Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, et al. were drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, abortion and many other rights were not considered in the laws. Eventually, in 1973, the right to abortion was found as part of a woman’s right to privacy in Roe. Since then, Republican and Democratic appointed justices have upheld Roe v. Wade and the legitimacy of protecting the right to an abortion.

Common sense dictated that this Court should do the same.

Apparently, however, the majority of justices has determined that women’s burdens and benefits in reproduction and risks inherent in unwanted pregnancies are matters that do not deserve uniform protection. The justices concluded that Texas, Missouri, California and others should have the authority to separately conclude when and if abortion should be permissible. Their conclusion defies logic. The Supreme Court has essentially cast women’s reproductive fate to the political winds of the states. As such, common sense has not been included in their 200-page treatise.

It is a barbaric decision. To paraphrase Stevie Wonder in “Ebony and Ivory,” “we all know that (women) are the same wherever (they) go.” Regardless, the Court now concludes that they must become the equivalent of a human safe deposit box from the moment of conception to be regulated by the states.

To reach their conclusion, the justices reviewed hundreds of cases, statutes and rules to patch together their argument. Perhaps they would be well advised to jointly view the “Cider House Rules” film in which a young black girl is impregnated by her father.

Federal legislation or a Constitutional amendment may be needed to alter the result of the Court’s decision.

In sum, if I were provided the opportunity to address the court on this issue, it would be as follows:

“May it please the Court — shame on you.”