Well, I got a paper about a month ago in my APUSH class that says to select a Supreme Court case and describe "why you believe it is pivotal in our nation's history". This paper is for the 2010 Congressional Seminar, and is sponsored by The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America, and in cooperation with The Washington Workshops Foundation.
I started thinking about some of the top ones. Obviously, Brown v. The Board of Education is one of the, if not the, most important case in our nation's history. Segregation and racism are wrong, and were rightfully abolished. Others I mulled around in my head were Marbury v. Madison, which allows the Supreme Court to declare congressional laws unconstitutional or invalid, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which asserts the S.C.'s ultimate power over state courts over federal law, and McCulloch v. Maryland, which used the "Necessary and Proper" clause, and says that states can't interfere with legitimate action of the federal government (which is why we've seen in the past that, for example, states with medical-marijuana laws have to comply with federal DEA agents when they close down dispensaries, even though the shops are legal under state law).
While all those are good and proper for the progress of our nation, there is no case in our nation's history that has divided groups into two polar opposites like Roe v. Wade, even more so, in my opinion, than Plessy v. Ferguson.
The sheet calls for a 500 word essay, but I don't feel as if only 500 words could do it justice.
For a little backstory, I'm going to quote the Wikipedia article, as I feel that it is very neutral, and I don't want to inflict my thoughts on it:
In September, 1969, while working as a carnival side-show barker, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant. She returned to Dallas, TX, where friends advised her to assert that she had been raped, because then she could obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas's anti-abortion laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed, as there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the site shuttered, closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. [5] In 1970, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). At the time, McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, but she later acknowledged she had lied earlier about having been raped.[6][7] The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. Although McCorvey was still hoping the courts would rule in her favor in time for her to end her unwanted pregnancy, she told her attorneys, "Let's do it for other women." [8] "Rape" is not mentioned anywhere in the court documents and was never a consideration in Roe v. Wade. [9] Norma McCorvey's affidavit does not include the word "rape".[10] The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the merits, but declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[11] The district court's decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment, and the court also relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, regarding a right to use contraceptives. Few state laws proscribed contraceptives in 1965 when the Griswold case was decided, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s.[12] Roe v. Wade ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. Following a first round of arguments, Justice Harry Blackmun drafted a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness.[13] Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. joined the Supreme Court too late to hear the first round of arguments. Therefore, Chief Justice Warren Burger proposed that the case be reargued; this took place on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers stepped in to replace Wade. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order, but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.
Now, I feel the need to summarize my view of it: Norma L. McCorvey found out she was pregnant, after working at a side-show. Because of Texas state-law at the time, she would not be able to get an abortion for the baby, unless the pregnancy was due to rape or from incest. However, there were never police reports on the "rape", so she couldn't get one legally. She turned to going to an under-the-table abortion site, but found that it was closed down by the police. In 1970, two lawyers, Linda Coffee, and Sarah Weddington, filed a suit for Norma under the name Jane Roe. At the state level, she won, but Henry Wade, who was the district attorney for Texas, appealed. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, where they were in favor of McCorvey (Roe), by a 7-2 count, stating that abortion is a fundamental right under the US Constitution, under the right for privacy.
Currently, all third-trimester abortions are illegal, after Roe v. Wade said that abortions are legal until viability (that is, being able to live naturally, or with machine-aided help), which is usually at 24 weeks old, but can be earlier as well. Some states also have "trigger laws" which means that they go into effect, pending some action; in this case, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, then some states have laws in place that would immediately make abortion illegal again. Several states have also tried to illegalize abortion, except where to protect the mother's health, by introducing bills that make personhood at conception, therefore making abortion a homocidal act, and having the doctors that performed the act liable under the law.
What's interesting to me is the story of McCorvey's life: she worked at a side-show, and claimed to be a lesbian. That raises one question: how did she become pregnant? Either she was a liar, and was not a lesbian, even though she had a partner, or she is the second coming of the Virgin Mary. Second, she has since changed her views and is an avid pro-life campaigner. Third, she has converted to Roman Catholicism. If the person who essentially legalized abortion is now pro-life, than why is it still legal?
As you can no doubt tell by now, I oppose every instance of abortion. Every child has the right to life, and who are we to decide whether someone lives or dies? Isn't that the exact reason why homocide, murder, and all the like are illegal- because it takes someone's life? A person shouldn't have a period of their life where their life depends on their parents views. A fetus, right now, isn't a human, but the second they are born, they have full legal rights. Does a baby get a certificate upon being born that says "Congratulations! 5 seconds ago you had no rights, but by your traveling of 1 foot through the womb, you have proven you are worthy of life!"? No, they don't. Abortions are promoting promiscuity by allowing anyone to have them. I've heard people talk about abortions in school, and heard the views of people in my journalism class when this topic was our free-write topic, where we rant for 10 minutes on the given subject. The most common answer I heard was "It should be legal in some cases, like rape, but illegal otherwise". I also heard "It should be legal, a women has a right to her body." And that's true, I agree. However, a woman shouldn't have the right to the body of their child in the aspect of life. I've also heard other people say "'You don't use a condom?"' 'Nah, if anything happens, I'll get an abortion.'" When people are viewing sex as an object, but take no responsibility for it's actions, something is wrong. Being a Massachusetts resident, my tax dollars help people get legal abortions, and that appalls me.
I'm not going to go into a whole spiel on the statistics of abortion, and how x% of women aged blah-blah get abortions; you can look that up yourself and draw your own conclusions. This essay isn't designed to persuade, just to inform of my views as per the assignment. I have looked at statistics from both pro-life and pro-choice sites, and, surprise surprise! There are inconsistencies with the numbers, so I recommend going with a (hopefully) neutral and bias-free statistical report from the CDC.
On January 22 of every year, pro-life activists gather in Washington, D.C. to protest Roe v. Wade. I commend their efforts, and hope to go someday to join them. You can find more info, if interested, at
http://www.marchforlife.org/. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of people there are Christians, as Christianity strongly opposes all instances abortion, unlike Judaism and other religions.
While some people believe that it is every woman's right to get an abortion, I ask of you, how would you feel if your mother had aborted you? Wouldn't be so fond of it now, would you? Most abortions are not for medical purposes (endangering the mother's life, for instance), rather, it is due to social factors (unwanted child, burden, rape, etc.). The fact is, abortion is killing a life, no matter what. Mothers have other options than abortion, like adoption. A lot of couples that are unable to have children would be glad to have the child you so desperately wish to get rid of. If you can't handle the financial aspect of a child, then don't risk having one. Sex is not a necessity, and unless you handle the consequences, you should abstain from it. It's the same thing when a little child asks for a puppy, parents often say "You won't get a puppy unless you can handle taking care of it and picking up after it." Likewise, "You're not getting your own car until you can pay for it yourself." Funny how the greatest gift one can get, a child, is the one thing that people so often refuse. Would you refuse a free Lamborghini? Of course not, unless you're also anti-Italian. So why refuse (and also deny the right of life to) a child? Sure, it can be a great burden, and your life will drastically change, but people need to start taking some self-responsibility and stop looking for the easy way out of everything. Our ancestors worked hard with back-breaking labor for little pay in order to support their families (who, by the way, would never have dreamed of aborting one of their often 7-9 children). Now, we live the life of luxury with sometimes-hard work and want only 1, 2, or 3 children. I see abortion as the backup to all of the problems associated with sex. Sure, you can abort a child and that problem's gone, but what if there are side-effects? Can you handle those financially, mentally, or physically? An abortion isn't the cheapest thing in the world, and the side-effects can lead to depression and other illnesses, none of which are cheap to treat.
I think I've gone on for long enough, this topic is highly controversial, and I doubt it will ever be fully solved. People will always have differing opinions, and this is just mine.
Posts
