Thoughts on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

All eyes are on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) as it heard oral

arguments in the case styled Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In

dispute is a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy with

exception for medical emergencies, but no exception for rape or incest. The U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued an injunction barring

enforcement of this law and the State’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was

turned down 3-0. The injunction thus remains in force. Mississippi has now appealed to

the SCOTUS. Oral arguments were just heard and the Court’s decision is expected

sometime before the end of its current term.

This case has aroused national interests for several reasons. Firstly, if SCOTUS

upholds the Mississippi law with resultant dismissal of the currently in force injunction,

it will appear to be a frontal attack on Roe v. Wade. That case found a constitutional

right to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, at which time extra uterine fetal viability

was assumed. Thus Dobbs at least partially reverses Roe by reducing the time during

which termination of pregnancy would be permitted. Presumably other states with

similar anti-abortion biases would then enact similar legislation.

In recent years, particularly during the presidency of Donald Trump, new SCOTUS

Justices with a “conservative” point of view were named to the Court. President Trump

in his four-year term named three Justices and at this moment it is unclear how they

will vote. Superficially, it seems that there is now a 6-3 conservative majority. It is

questionable whether one can conclude that a conservative Justice would automatically

vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as conservatives have traditionally been for freedom and

non-interference of the government in people’s lives. So just where a conservative or a

liberal stands on this issue leaves room for doubt on how the justices will vote on this

case.

Finally, the extreme polarization of the American citizenry in recent years makes

abortion a hot topic. The terms pro-life and pro-choice are bandied about with little

understanding of their meaning. In a sense, all are pro-life, including those who support

abortion. The only people who can be said to not be pro-life, that is pro-death, are paid

murderers for hire and various other sociopaths.

The temperature must be cooled down as both sides of the debate must recognize

that freedom requires non-intervention in the personal private lives of others. No one

truly knows or feels the burdens that others may have or suffer. Legislation mandating

that a raped fourteen year old girl must bear the rapist’s child really requires

compassion and understanding from strangers who may view themselves righteous

and sympathetic people. Yet they are not. America went through a similar issue about a

hundred years ago. Prohibition of alcoholic beverages was ordained by constitutional

amendment and lasted for about fourteen years. The law was observed in its violation

as liquor was served in the White House and bootleggers ran wild during the “Roaring

Twenties”.

What can we learn from this? The following: Laws that make honest people into

criminals are essentially unenforceable and in reality are null and void from the time of

their enactment as they will be ignored by most people. The “great experiment”-

Prohibition, was supported by decent people. The law was violated routinely by equally

decent people. The end result was repeal of the constitutional amendment by another

amendment. Prohibition was a great failure.

Overturning Roe v. Wade, partially in the Dobbs case or totally in some future case will

result in abortions continuing without proper medical conditions. The future violators

are not criminals and ultimately laws banning abortion, surgical or medical, are null and

void and will be rectified by repeal which will again legalize the procedure. We do not

live in Ceacescu’s Romania where every woman of child bearing age was examined

monthly to prevent termination of pregnancy. The Dictator said that a great country

needed a great population. He was finally overthrown by his population. It is SCOTUS’

responsibility to not permit frivolous “laws” to trivialize our system of jurisprudence. We

are and want a nation of laws. Coercive laws will continue to be unenforceable. Roe v.

Wade should stand as settled law.

Garry S. Sklar

Las Vegas, NV

December 2, 2021