My Country ‘Tis
of Thee
My country,
'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride
From ev'ry mountainside
Let freedom ring!
Is the freedom
to have an abortion protected by the Constitution?
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto
God the things that are God’s”. In the
SCOTUS case concerning abortion, the Supreme
Court is NOT being asked to act as God, but it is being asked to act as Caesar.
IMHO, this opinion should not be decided on precedent. It should also not rely on beliefs, no matter how
popular. It should not rely on whether
the opinion might inconvenience any parties.
It should not rely on whether those actions were common law at the time the
Constitution was adopted. It should rely on the US Constitution, and solely on
the US Constitution, SCOTUS is NOT charged with being an activist who can
invent rights not defined in the Constitution.
The Constitution defined that the people are its sovereign.
That is what makes the experiment that began
over 200 years ago so unique, that the subjects of a sovereign would BE the sovereign. The subjects, the citizens of the States that
were being United through ratification of the Constitution, did not ratify it
without assuring that the Bill of Rights defined the rights of each person, to
eliminate any confusion between rights of individual subjects and rights of the
sovereign. Those rights are enumerated
to include, for the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and, especially
pertinent in this case before SCOTUS, protection against actions by the sovereign
unless the sovereign renders reasonable compensation.
When disputes arise between subjects of the sovereign,
then the SCOTUS is charged with determining which subject’s rights
prevail. However the issue before the
court is who is a subject. In the Mississippi
case, the state of Mississippi acting through its legislature, is clearly a
subject. Those women who seek an abortion are clearly subjects. Those women are carrying fetuses, and those fetuses may, or
may not, be subjects.
The Constitution requires a decennial Census of its
subjects to determine, among other things, voting representation. The question of citizenship should thus be
whether the Census, as required by the Constitution, considers a fetus to be a
subject, i.e. a citizen. Children are counted
in the Census. They are subjects, citizens, but do
not yet have the right to vote. Children
who are born and die, between decennial Censuses are not enumerated, but they
are still considered to be subjects, persons, because at the time of a Census
they would have been enumerated. The Census does not count fetuses. Fetuses are children who have not yet been
born. SCOTUS has determined, rightly IMHO,
that fetuses who are viable outside of the womb, are persons
and have the same status as children who are born and die between decennial
Censuses. The question before SCOTUS is whether
fetuses who are NOT viable outside of the womb are subjects. If they are not subjects, then
laws giving special protections to those non viable fetuses, without compensation
to the women who are carrying those fetuses, would appear to NOT be protected by the
Constitution.
If the State of Mississippi required its citizens to take
any action without compensation, and that action was not protected by the Constitution,
it should be forbidden by the Constitution.
That the action is for non viable fetuses does not make that action Constitutionally
protected, unless those fetuses also have rights under the Constitution. The
Court has previously decided that, under the Constitution, those non viable
fetuses have no protected rights. I would hope that SCOTUS continues to uphold this principle.
The personhood of fetuses who are NOT viable outside of
the womb is a matter of opinion and belief, e.g. a matter for God. The status of those non viable fetuses with respect
to the Constitution is the matter that is before
the court. Render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s. Do not grant a right to
those fetuses that is NOT listed in the Constitution. Unless there is a Constitutional
Amendment which establishes that non viable fetuses are persons, the decision of
SCOTUS should, IMHO, be clear. A decision by SCOTUS that a non viable fetus is
not a person will not be popular with many. But just as paying taxes to Caesar
was not popular, the question is not popularity,
but whether the issue is Caesar’s, i.e. the
Constitution's, and not God’s.