The right to abortion was never enshrined into law in this country, and that’s the problem. The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment by the reluctant southern states could have made Roe v. Wade more difficult to overturn, but the fact remains that a Supreme Court determined to place their boots on American women’s necks had plenty of power to do it because of the lack of laws on abortion rights. Justice Samuel Alito, ridiculously but correctly, said the right to abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution, and this further points to the danger of placing so much weight upon an 18th century paper, where women were not mentioned at all.
In Western Europe, all of the countries but Germany have laws that protect abortion rights. Germany, the exception, allows abortion on demand up to the end of the first trimester but does not regulate it. In all other Western European countries, abortion is completely open until the 12th or 14th week, then more strictly medically controlled. You won’t be surprised to hear that Sweden was the first country to pass a law lifting some of the restrictions on abortion as early as 1938. Since then, they loosened the law more and more until they left the decision entirely up to the individual woman in 1974. This was a crucial time when most Western European countries decided to lift the burden of unwanted pregnancy off their women: Denmark, 1973; Austria, 1975; France, 1975; Netherland, 1975; Italy, 1978; Spain, 1985; etc. Most of these countries cover the cost of abortion through their health care systems. Ironically, England, cited as an example by Alito for some arcane 18th century point of view, made abortion legal as early as 1967.
I grew up in France, where a right once given cannot be taken away (There would be a revolution!), so I was confident that nothing could ever happen to Roe v. Wade. Like other women, I saw the clouds gather, but I did not take them seriously enough. Yet I knew that the United States was the only developed country that did not sign the U.N. Convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women, and did not sign the U.N. Convention to protect the rights of children. The embryos that appear to be so important to our justices are conveniently forgotten as soon as they become children, and are too often left to face poverty and guns on their own because they have no rights here.
In conclusion, if we can’t for the moment get rid of the violation and abuse that the Supreme Court and backward states decided to impose upon American women, let us at least remove the hypocrisy surrounding their decision, and call it for what it is: a stratagem to control women, especially the poor, the uneducated, and the minorities.
Odile Ayral
SLO
This article appears in Jun 30 – Jul 10, 2022.
As Alito “ridiculously, but correctly” said? A semantic quibble but if something is correct, how can it be “ridiculous”? I think you mean that you dislike what he noted.
Americans need to insist on our Right to Privacy.
Somewhere, somehow our individual Right to be left alone exists in our Constitution.
Once the concept is recognized and accepted by the Courts, each of us will be protected from gov’t reaching into our bedrooms and doctors offices, clinics or hospitals.
“if something is correct, how can it be ridiculous?”
It’s ridiculous to think that the framers did not have firearms in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment; however, guns are not included anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
Pick a side Boomer…
Huh? Your point is?
Lol. Do you really need it spelled out for you?
“The right to abortion was never enshrined into law in this country”
And neither was the Constitutional right to a gun.
You’d think that someone preaching the MeFirst gospel in the public sphere would have read the Constitution, but I suppose the Bill of Rights isn’t exactly a strong suit for a Radical Republican nationalist.
You may not have a firm grasp of American Constitutional law, but at least you’ve got your money and part ownership of the great trump debacle.
Row Mr Donegan… row your Ship of Fools.
Fascinating. I make a comment about a semantic contradiction, and you have launched into a diatribe about….well, I’m not really sure. You seem to have constructed your own argument, and furnished all the issues, freeing me of the need to contribute anything to your little monologue. Good luck in your battle with a world which just doesn’t understand you.