Constitution subject to reinterpretation as times change

While I don’t profess to be on either extreme side of the abortion issue, I see abortion as a sometimes necessary evil in certain situations. But it is difficult to swallow it being utilized based on economics or as a birth control method. Accidents do happen, but engaging in unprotected sex is a risky gamble if, up front, there is a clear desire not to get pregnant or cause pregnancy by either of the involved parties.

But now look at what role the Supreme Court justices are required to adhere to: They are basically installed to expound on and interpret the Constitution without personal biases on issues within the scope of their responsibilities (“Report: Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, draft opinion shows,” May 3). Apparently, that is what happened with Roe versus Wade.

But to say that ruling is forever written in stone is a fallacy since another court could determine it an unconstitutional ruling — which appears potentially on the horizon. Basically, proponents of Roe v. Wade are saying that the previous court was correctly interpreting the Constitution, and the opponents and current court are not. In other words, being first is the being right, and that is only what counts.

I doubt the writers of the Constitution would be fans of that philosophy since that hallowed document is subject to continued interpretation. Just like a duly passed law can always be amended, repealed or judged unconstitutional, why should a Supreme Court ruling be any different?

My hope is the Supreme Court does it job unencumbered by political pressure from either viewpoints and decides based on whether it is truly an issue either the court or the states are responsible for. My final thought is that the Constitution is not a living document, but one that is can be reinterpreted considering historical changes and realities since it was originally drafted. And no, I am not a lawyer.

— Michael Ernest, Catonsville