An Open Letter to Roe v. Wade

Dear Roe v. Wade,

On Wednesday, June 27th, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that he would be stepping down from the Supreme Court. This is sort of a big deal because it gives Trump the opportunity to select the next Supreme Court Justice - which is bad news for liberals.

Supreme Court Justices can serve for life. Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan and has served for the past 30 years. Whoever Trump appoints could serve that amount of time and more.

While Justice Kennedy was a member of the Republican Party, he was more moderate than many of the Republicans that we see today. He was often the pivotal swing vote, and helped to pave the way for many progressive decisions such as the legalization of same-sex marriage. Sadly, revolutionary decisions like this one could be on the chopping block because Trump's appointee will likely leave liberal justices outnumbered.

This week, I want to look at a Supreme Court case that has been the subject of much debate since it was decided. Though many Democrats believe it to be a forward-looking decision, many Republicans think that it should be reversed.

The infamous Roe v. Wade.

Decided in 1973, Roe v. Wade ruled that the unduly restrictive state regulation of abortions is unconstitutional. As you can imagine, this was a revolutionary decision that made it easier for women across the country to receive abortions. The decision happened in the midst of the women's rights movement and the sexual revolution as well as during the rise of counterculture in the United States. The decision also came a few years after the legalization of contraception.

With the retirement of Justice Kennedy, Roe v. Wade is on the line. Abortion is a really complicated issue that many people feel very strongly about. It's been a debate that has had influence on this country since it was invented. I want to use this medium as a place to sort out the facts, and explain why the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

I want to start out by saying that I am pro-CHOICE. Let's unpack that, because, in my experience, some people who disagree on this subject think that I want to kill babies and ruin lives because I believe women should have access to abortions. This is an enormous misunderstanding, but I am happy to explain the discrepancy.

By pro-choice, I mean that I support the idea that women should be given the opportunity to make the decision for themselves. Congress should not have the ability to wield control over another human being's body. If a woman wants to have a child, or not, it is her decision, especially in an instance where a woman has been subjected to rape or incest, or her life is in danger because of a pregnancy. She should have the choice because it is her body and her life.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I also want to delve into the term "pro-life." I, personally, am not at all sympathetic to the pro-life side of the argument. Allow me to explain why.

I find the phrase "pro-life" to be completely and utterly hypocritical. Most people on the pro-life side of this debate also side with the Republican Party. They argue relentlessly that the child in question is a human being, and they often beg Democrats to "have a heart."

But, where is the funding for when a child is born, but unwanted?

I would be far more inclined to listen to the pro-life argument if those who wanted to eradicate abortions were doing everything in their power to improve our foster care systems. If you do not want to allow abortions, then fine. But what are you doing to make sure that child has a chance at life?

A child still matters when they are no longer a fetus.

However, in many instances, the Republican Party does not choose to fund the social programs or legislation that would help to give these children better lives. Do not force mothers to have children they cannot take care of if there is no guarantee that the child will have the necessities to give them the care that they need.

My second qualm with the pro-life argument is the fact that abortions will continue to happen even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Many states will have the opportunity to outlaw abortions, and if women cannot afford to travel to states that offer them, then they will have to find other and more dangerous methods. The overturning of Roe v. Wade will put the lives of many women across this country in jeopardy. How can that be pro-life?

There are several other consequences to the reversal of Roe v. Wade as well. According to Katherine Franke, the director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University, "If women can’t control their reproductive bodies — and it’s a crime to do so — we’ll also see a drop in women in the wage labor market, in politics, [and] as heads of corporations." If we lose Roe v. Wade, it will only hurt women, at home and in the workplace.

We will be moving backwards, and Trump will have succeeded in erasing more and more of the progress that we have made in the past few decades. And where do we draw the line? If Roe v. Wade can be overturned, what will stop the Supreme Court from reversing Brown v. Board of Education, or Obergefell v. Hodges?

Family is such an important cornerstone in American life, so I can understand why many Republicans believe that abortions are clawing away at this long-treasured value. But, if you are pro-life, you need to fight for the children after they are born. You need to fight for the children who have been separated from their parents at our border. You need to fight for the children being gunned down in our schools.

Pro-life means more than fighting for a jumble of cells. It means standing with women who were raped, or whose lives are in danger, and it means protecting our children who are in danger now.

Maybe when pro-life supporters start doing that, I'll be more willing to talk.

Yours truly,

P.S. A brief reminder.