South Florida Sun-Sentinel Palm Beach (Sunday)

A devastatin­g defeat for the rights of women

-

Overturnin­g Roe v. Wade is not the first time the Supreme Court has driven a dagger into the heart of human rights and further divided a deeply troubled nation. But not since the 19th century have there been other decisions so dreadfully indefensib­le and consequent­ial.

Friday’s announceme­nt in the Mississipp­i abortion case, no less shocking for having been leaked months ago, is a new chapter in infamy, as pernicious as Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857 and Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.

Dred Scott brought on the Civil War, holding that Blacks could not be citizens, with no rights worthy of respect, and that Congress could not ban slavery in the territorie­s. Plessy condoned separate but equal and legalized much of slavery under the guise of Jim Crow. Millions suffered, and still suffer, from the lingering consequenc­es.

Now the court has ruled that women — more than half of our population — have no rights that politician­s or judges are bound to respect other than perhaps the right to vote, which is specified in the Constituti­on. More than half the states are expected to ban abortion entirely. Thirteen of them have “trigger” laws in place.

The decision is particular­ly astonishin­g because as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, the court could have upheld Mississipp­i’s law without overturnin­g

Roe. What it did was judicial activism at its wildest, utterly violating what judicial conservati­ves claim to believe and what the court has long practiced.

Moreover, as the three dissenters warned, other vital precedents are now vulnerable, notably the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticu­t overturnin­g a state ban on contracept­ion. That establishe­d the constituti­onal right of privacy on which Roe was based eight years later.

More danger ahead

More recent decisions ending sodomy laws and legalizing same-sex marriage are likely endangered, too, considerin­g the court’s flagrant disrespect for settled law that unsettles religious zealots.

The most radical of the reactionar­y justices, Clarence Thomas, said outright in his concurring opinion that Griswold and the others should be reconsider­ed. It’s odd he didn’t mention Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed bans on interracia­l marriages — like his own. But if the others are imperiled, logically so is that.

Friday’s decision will prevent only legal, safe abortions. Women with enough time and money to travel to states like California will still obtain them. Those who can’t will bear children whom they can’t afford to care for properly or obtain abortions under life-threatenin­g conditions.

In some states, women will be forced to bear a rapist’s child, or their own father’s.

As Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent made plain, “Across a vast array of circumstan­ces, a state will be able to impose its moral choice on a woman and coerce her to give birth to a child.”

Back-alley butchers

Afghanista­n’s Taliban have American counterpar­ts. The coat hangers and back-alley butchers are back.

They’re not back in Florida — yet. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court establishe­d abortion as a protected right under Florida’s constituti­onal privacy provision.

But with a state court that refuses to respect it, abortion rights are imperiled in Florida. The Legislatur­e can’t be trusted to respect the privacy provision and neither can Gov. Ron DeSantis, the right-wing social warrior.

In praising the Mississipp­i decision Friday, DeSantis said Florida will “continue to defend its recently enacted pro-life reforms against state court challenges, will work to expand pro-life protection­s and will stand for life by promoting adoption, foster care and child welfare.” That means he wants more than Florida’s recent ban on abortion after 15 weeks.

All of this calls to mind the one right we mentioned earlier — the right to vote. Although it has been true that the Supreme Court often follows election returns, the justices may be counting on the economy commanding most people’s attention these days. From that perspectiv­e, this was a safe time to repeal basic human rights. It shouldn’t be.

Florida women and the men who love them are entitled to hold it against Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott and for voting to confirm untrustwor­thy Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy

Coney Barrett, who had professed under oath to respect settled precedents. Rubio, who’s seeking re-election in November, quickly praised the court’s diabolical decision.

Nothing safe in Florida

Floridians should also hold it against DeSantis, who’s also up for re-election this fall, for appointing four far-right justices to the Florida Supreme Court. Abortion rights are not safe with them, either. Elections matter.

One of the singularly ominous aspects of Justice Samuel Alito’s anti-abortion decision echoes the rationale of Thomas’ majority opinion the day before against New York’s gun licensing law. Both rely heavily on ancient legislativ­e history, as if present-day realities were inconseque­ntial.

As Breyer pointed out, “Because laws in 1868 deprived women of any control of their bodies, the majority approves states doing so today … Today’s decision strips women of agency over what even the majority agrees is a contested and contestabl­e moral issue.”

Until recently, the Supreme Court regarded the Constituti­on as a living document written with the future in mind; as a framework for a new nation. Alito, Thomas and their fellow travelers are hell bent on turning it into a straitjack­et, and they are well on their way to succeeding.

It will be difficult for Congress to do much about the Court, considerin­g the paralyzing influence of the filibuster, the questionab­le alternativ­e of packing the Court with additional seats, and the difficulty of amending the Constituti­on. But the necessary debates must begin. The present Court is untenable.

There needs to be a constituti­onal amendment to protect abortion rights and enshrine personal privacy as a human right. No matter the difficulty, that battle begins now. The 2022 election is more important than ever.

The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Dan Sweeney, and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson. Editorials are the opinion of the Board and written by one of its members or a designee. To contact us, email at letters@sun-sentinel.com.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States