Commentary
We seem to be living in an era of chicken little politics, where politicians continue to seize voters after the crisis in the manufacturing industry. The sky is falling.
The recent crisis involved the Dobbs v. Jackson US Supreme Court ruling, overturning the Roe v. Wade case and allowing the Mississippi State Assembly to regulate abortion. The ruling was greeted with a predictable ridicule by the politician on the left who openly attacked the legitimacy of the court.
It’s easy to get lost in the emotions surrounding the incident. In fact, the legal significance of Dobbs is not that it overturned the Roe v. Wade case.It is another case that considers the limits of the doctrine, overturning the planned parent-child relationship vs. Casey. Gaze decision, Or precedent. The doctrine runs into problems because judges make mistakes like everyone else and need some mechanism to correct them.
Casey’s court was dissatisfied with the Roe v. Wade case, but felt that it caused a cataclysm in the system and could not be overturned. That’s where the Dobbs judge objected. They thought the decision was clearly wrong and had to be overturned.
After all, their problem with the Roe v. Wade case is that the judges in the case simply took their own views. It is a problem because the Constitution stipulates that such difficult moral decisions should be made by people through a democratic system. There are limits and politicians must respect the Constitution, but judges basically have to leave and let the legislature decide.
The allegations that Dobbs judges have exceeded their limits will set it back accordingly. Whether you agree with the court or not, this case represents the proposition that judges do not have the right to impose their moral views on the rest of us.
The court’s view on abortion is also misrepresented. Mississippi law prohibited abortion if the fetus had a “gestational age” of more than 15 weeks. Therefore, allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks should be emphasized along with all the false information. We also recognized exceptions. The statute is not a radical legislation, but adopts a balanced position that courts tend to support, leaving ample room for both sides to take legal action.
The point is that the majority did not take a position on abortion, but simply said that the legislature took a “reasonable” position in a situation where it served its legislative objectives. The rest must be decided by voters.
In Canada, R.v. overturned the criminal law that regulates abortion in Canada. At Morgentaler, Bertha Wilson, the first woman in the Supreme Court to be recognized as liberal, made an important statement.
Madame Justice Wilson had no problems with abortion regulation. Fetal protection is “a perfectly valid legislative purpose,” she writes. It is in the same position that the court accepted Dobbs. The question then is, “At what point in pregnancy, is fetal protection an urgent and substantive concern that goes beyond the woman’s fundamental right to decide whether to give birth to a fetus?”
Judge Wilson took the traditional position. In the early stages of pregnancy, women’s decisions are “absolute.” However, in late pregnancy, the interests of the fetus need to be considered and the country can legally intervene to protect the fetus. She then suggested that the point at which the state could intervene “may fall somewhere in the second semester.” It was, of course, the position adopted by the Mississippi Parliament, and in reality, the courts that gave women the right to choose abortion in Canada probably upheld Mississippi law.
Importantly, the Dobbs court’s position is moderate and qualified, and attacks on the legitimacy of the court are highly irresponsible. As far as I can see, the only motive for the attack is that many politicians hate decisions. Quite typically, they have responded with a barbaric claim that this decision outlaws all abortions in the United States.
The proposal is sad. No one knows what the court will decide. Politicians, like everyone else, need to take a deep breath and wait to see what happens. There is nothing unusual about Dobbs. As the judiciary goes through other cases in the system, the outline of the law is gradually revealed. That is, dare to say, how the common law is supposed to work.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
follow
Paul Vincent Groarke is a retired lawyer and scholar. He has his PhD. He is in the field of philosophy and he publishes extensively on the history of common law, ethics and philosophy. He recently commented on the COVID crisis in the “System of Rules”. This book discusses political theory in a language that everyone can understand.