Roe v. Wade: Further Proof (Part III)

I am in favor of “equal protection” for women to join the military and there should be absolutely no restrictions (no more than men) on them to face combat. I would like to see women work higher paying and more dangerous jobs such as roofing, construction, logging, and deep-sea fishing. For every all-male school which feminists force to be co-ed the same should be done to eliminate traditions at an all-female school. I saw a commercial recently for a product I cannot name, but paraphrasing the female athlete she said, “there are no genders in sports, just athletes”. This is not true! For just about any sport there are both male and female divisions. If feminist really want equal protection then why don’t they want to combine athletics into one classification? Once again, this is an area where feminists are completely happy having non-equal protection. In fact, dumb laws like Title IX take athletic opportunities away from males in both high school and college. You see, to feminists, equal protection is an equal number of male and female athletes at each school, not that women should compete against men. Women want to distinguish between men when it favors their agenda, not when it does not. Discrimination is fair when it favors women, but not vice-versa. They want it both and the Courts have complied yielding a double standard of non-equal protection rights for women on certain issues and not in others.

Linking both the birth control and abortion movements makes little sense. After all, if people practiced proper birth control then there would be no need for abortions. Birth control rights and sterilization options should make abortion needs illegal except under certain conditions. However, pro-abortion advocates link birth control (Griswold) to abortion (Roe) because some birth control methods are abortifacients. This may be true, but the Court decided in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that a company did not have to pay for an employee’s abortifacients (but did pay for other types of contraception) in its healthcare plans. Here the Court distinguishes between certain types of birth control: those that prevent a pregnancy and those that destroy a pregnancy. So, once again, this argument has no legs. There is nothing to link Roe (abortion) to Griswold (Contraception).

When the issue of birth control first hit the Supreme Court in Poe v. Ullman the question of “privacy” was addressed. Although the Court decided there was no injury and dismissed the case the Court was not unanimous in that decision. In his dissent, John Marshall Harlan, suggested the issue of privacy existed not in a woman’s right for contraception, but in the right to privacy for both a man and a woman in marriage to decide what is best for them. When the issue appeared before the Supreme Court again in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Court handed down it controversial decision. Many Justices worried about the impact the broad and ambiguous “right to privacy” may have on many issues including abortion. In the oral arguments for Griswold Justice Black asked, “Would your argument relating to privacy, invalidate all laws that punish people for bringing about abortions?” Griswold’s attorney (Emerson) responded “No, I think that it would not cover abortion laws; that conduct does not occur in the privacy of the home.” Justice White asked Emerson “I take it abortion involves killing a life, doesn’t it? Isn’t that rather a different problem from contraception?” Emerson conceded White’s point. Justice Black asked Emerson, “Are you saying that all abortions involve killing or murder?” Emerson replied, “Well, I don’t know whether you could characterize it that way, but it involves taking what has begun to be a life.” Justice Douglas in his majority opinion for Griswold cited both Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters which declare many Fundamental Rights, but privacy was not one of them. The decision in Meyer, does however claim, as Justice Harlan explained in Poe, marriage is a Fundamental Right. Griswold and the “right to privacy” was the main precedent used by the majority to find a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. However, the right of privacy discussed in Griswold specifically does not include abortion and it does not include a “woman’s right for contraception” but the right of both a man and woman in marriage to make decisions for contraception. Roe v. Wade was not about a private decision between a married or dating couple, but a “woman’s right” to abortion with or without the consent of their partner. And there is nothing as I pointed out earlier linking abortion to contraception in Roe and Griswold respectively.

The opinions of Griswold and Roe and the autonomy of women’s rights at the expense of men’s rights show a direct correlation to the biggest spike in divorce rates, brutal custody battles, and single mothers. The divorce rate went from 10% pre-Griswold to 50% post-Griswold and that rate has remained fairly constant for the last 50 years. Feminism has produced a vicious cycle of events leading to a new feminist war: demanding more entitlements for single moms. It is, of course, no surprise that single women earn a majority of government handouts.

Roe v. Wade was interesting for other reasons as well. First, the plaintiffs suffered no injury or loss so as in Poe the Courts really did not have any jurisdiction in the case because there was nothing to be settled. Why would the Court accept jurisdiction over a case where there is no injury or damages to be collected or claimed? Secondly, the plaintiffs Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) and Mary and John Doe (Marsha and David King) filed suit under fake names to protect their identity. If Abortion was a Fundamental Right there would be no reason to hide behind fake names. This proves abortion was taboo and controversial and not a right held in the same regard among all women or men like other Fundamental Rights.

The right to privacy and abortion were first linked in a case against J. Paul Shively who performed abortions on women who contracted rubella during their pregnancies and feared their children would be deformed. Shively’s attorney, Leavy, said, “It is a palpable invasion of the right of privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the state to inject itself into the sanctity of the marital relationship and dictate that the advice of the physician may not be followed.” Leavy correctly claims the issue is once again about the privacy between a “married” couple but he completely neglects the future arguments that Emerson would use in Roe that abortion itself is covered by the right to privacy. In Baird v. Eisenstadt (1972) the Court held that the Griswold ruling or a right to privacy extended to “unmarried persons” but it did not distinguish between men and women. This means that the decision of contraception was between two “unmarried” consenting adults. In a California case, Dr. Leon Belous was indicted for giving the name of an abortionist to one of his patients. The court held that Griswold did not apply because his patient was “unmarried”. The California Supreme Court overruled the case in a narrow 4-3 decision saying that the privacy rights between the girl and her doctor were more important than the state’s interest in a potential life. This decision obviously did not follow the logic of the Griswold opinion, but it may have set the precedent for the Court in Baird. But even Baird does not yield absolute power in the decision-making process over contraception to women alone.