Protests: Stay away from my house — and my womb
Patience might not be among the special skills possessed by those harassing Supreme Court justices outside their homes. But a little more patience could prove more productive for abortion rights advocates as well as for our fragile republic.
Our Supreme Court is part of what separates us from the barbarians who settle differences not by the rule of law but by violence. We're not there yet, but we appear to be closing in on the last barricade between civility and anarchy.
Protest is an American staple, but the harassment of Supreme Court justices at their homes should frighten all Americans.
For some protesters and commentators, however, this is no time for “civility.” CNN anchor Laura Jarrett, daughter of former top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, said that talking about civility “misses the mark” when reproductive freedom is at stake. Defenders of these neighborhood demonstrations charge the high court with hypocrisy in allowing antiabortion activists to protest near abortion clinics while demanding privacy at their homes.
There's an obvious difference, but I'm not immune to the point: demanding respect for one's own domain while blocking a woman's autonomy over her own body could trigger some fairly strong resentment, to put it mildly.
If Roe is reversed, more than half of the states already have laws on the books that would trigger some kind of ban on abortion. Between January and early May last year, 549 abortion restrictions were introduced in 47 states, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute. Since then, restrictions have only increased. Texas has banned abortion after six weeks and allows anyone to sue anyone else who performs or helps a person obtain an abortion.
By now, most people are familiar with the arguments for and against the procedure, which boils down not to when human life begins but: When does it matter? When the fetus is viable? When it feels pain? When it is ensouled? Welcome to the head of a pin.
These aren't the issues before the Supreme Court, nor are they of most-urgent concern to women (and men) who value their bodily autonomy against government intervention. The question is whether the Constitution's privacy protections extend to women's reproductive organs.
To the strict textualists, they do not. In the draft opinion leaked last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” and that “its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” No argument on the last part.
But shouldn't Alito & Co. also consider whether the Founding Fathers were really capable of wrestling with women's rights or privacy in the 1780s, much less women's reproductive rights? Given that women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, my safe guess is: not so much.
Most Western societies, including most European countries, settled this along reasonable lines. A majority of European Union countries allow abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy. Sweden, the most liberal among them, allows abortion until the 18th week. Compromise has been impossible here in part because the pro-choice side argues that the female body (and all parts and attachments thereto) is off limits to government.
I'd rather we find a middle ground. We now have a country in which various practices are banned in some states and legal in others. Through better education, we should tell the complete story of abortion. It isn't only about a woman's right to choose but is also an avoidable death in the human family. May your conscience be your guide.
Soon enough – by late June or early July – we will know where this court lands. The court's conservative majority might well decide that Roe was wrongly decided, toss the precedent and send the abortion question back to the states to sort out.
But another possibility hovers in the near distance: Brett M. Kavanaugh, considered a swing justice by some, might settle for a narrow compromise, allowing Mississippi to keep its 15-week limit on abortion but stepping back from a complete reversal of Roe. He has surprised us before, as when he sided with liberal justices in a lawsuit against Apple over app prices – a move that prompted some to question his conservative bona fides. He could surprise again, siding with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. on this issue.
Unfortunately, the protests outside his house make it more difficult for Kavanaugh to join Roberts as a moderating force. No one likes to be bullied or seen as bowing to the rabble.
For everyone's sake, patience and, yes, civility, might be the better strategy for preserving Roe – and the future of the republic.