By JOSHUA RIEBEL, Opinions Editor
On May 3, a leaked opinion drafted by Supreme Court Associate Justice Alito foreshadowed the overturn of the landmark case Roe v Wade. On June 24, the word was passed down by the Supreme Court that they no longer desired to uphold Roe. Instead, state governments would be allowed to pass legislation banning abortion, and within three months, 14 states have passed abortion bans (a dozen more have either partial bans or failed attempts to ban abortions). This decision is disastrous both for its antipathy to the role of the Supreme Court and how this short-sighted political game actually affects the American people as a whole.
To be clear, I am disinterested in engaging an ethical debate over access to abortion, as this is no longer a theoretical situation. Further, the manner in which the court made their ruling was entirely inconsistent with the typical operation of the court. In Justice Alito’s leaked opinion (as well as some interviews), he asserts that the court is too fixated with stare decisis, and that it should not be seen as a legal “straitjacket.” While this legal jargon may sound reasonable, the translation is that Justice Alito does not care about judicial precedent if it conflicts with his own political views. Chief Justice John Marshall first cemented the need for stare decisis back in Gideon v Ogden when he realized that courts were losing credibility when each court made different decisions rather than striving for consistency. Even Alexander Hamilton argued for the need of justices that made rulings based on legal principles rather than political beliefs in the Federalist papers. However, Justice Alito has placed himself above court precedence and wants total judicial discretion to pick and choose between following court precedence and when he finds it convenient to ignore it. This is a terrifying precedent for the court to set, as he opens the court to more ad hoc rulings whenever he overrules prior rulings without extraordinarily good cause. Second, by taking away protection of a fundamental healthcare need without providing infrastructure on how to supplement that need, the court shows its gross disconnect from the American people (perhaps an indication that a lifetime court appointment is too long).
By taking a fundamental healthcare need and then choosing to no longer support it, nor provide any alternative for the existing need, the court has turned its citizens’ lives into pawns in a political game. The job of the court is to protect the rights of their citizens, and in this case that responsibility was to the women of this country who struggle to acquire birth control medicines that are rarely covered by insurance. That responsibility is to rape victims that do not wish to carry the child of their rapists, or for mothers who are in an impossible position where either they or their child will not survive childbirth. That responsibility is to women who are expected to be abstinent while men can get easy access to Viagra. The Supreme Court cannot not and should not make rulings based on their politics or moral beliefs.
We as a people are better than this. This ruling is narrow-minded and disgraceful, yet it exists. We must support one another and help one another like the biblical Good Samaritan, as the Supreme Court is either unwilling or unable to protect us and our inalienable rights.
