Con Law Read Online Free PDF Page A

wanted to give a woman the right to have an abortion, wouldn’t they have just written it into the Bill of Rights?’
    ‘Their misogynistic belief system prevented them from considering the plight of women, just as their racist attitudes prevented them from freeing the slaves.’
    ‘All right. Let’s assume that to be true, that our Founding Fathers were unable, due to their upbringing, their religious beliefs, their views about women’s place in society … for whatever reason, they were incapable of including a right to an abortion in the Constitution. Now, fast forward to nineteen seventy-three. Women may vote, use contraceptives, attend law school. States are liberalizing abortion laws. Why didn’t the Court just say to Roe, “We’re sorry, but the Constitution does not address abortion. Therefore, you must take your complaint to your state legislature to change the law.” Isn’t that the correct action for the Court to take, to defer to the democratic process?’
    ‘Changing the law through fifty state legislatures would have taken decades, and without a national abortion right poor womenlike Roe might have to travel to another state to obtain an abortion. A Supreme Court opinion is the law of the land. It changes the law in all fifty states in a single moment. Like that.’
    She snapped her fingers.
    ‘But, Ms. Garza, isn’t the appropriate avenue to a national abortion right a constitutional amendment? The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times to add the Bill of Rights, end slavery, guarantee the right to vote to women and persons of all races, create an income tax, begin and end prohibition … Why not abortion?’
    ‘Because the justices knew right-wing religious nuts would block a constitutional amendment granting women the right to an abortion.’
    ‘But isn’t that the nature of democracy? We the people determining our own rights?’
    ‘Not when they the Republicans deny me my rights.’
    ‘But what do you do in a democracy when you can’t convince a majority that you should in fact possess a particular right?’
    ‘I do what Roe did—I get the Supreme Court to give me the right I want.’
    ‘So, in a nation of three hundred twenty million people, nine unelected lawyers sitting as the Supreme Court should circumvent democracy by removing certain issues from the democratic process and declaring those issues constitutional in nature?’
    ‘Yes. And it only takes five justices to win.’
    ‘But by removing abortion from the democratic process, didn’t the Court poison political discourse in America? Abortion wasn’t even part of the political conversation before
Roe
. Now it’s a litmus test for judges and politicians, and it has polarized the nation.
Roe
didn’t settle a political fight; it started one.’
    ‘It gave women control over their reproductive decisions. Just like men enjoy.’
    ‘Oh,yeah,’ Mr. Stanton said from the back row. ‘We’ve got it real good. A girl lies about being on the pill, and we’re paying child support for the next eighteen years. Try telling that to your dad.’
    Another awkward silence captured the classroom.
    ‘Uh, okay, let’s move on. In nineteen ninety-two, after two decades of protests, political fights, and contentious judicial nominations, the Court again took up a major abortion case,
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
. The Court’s stated intent was to put an end to the abortion wars in the country. In a five-to-four decision, the Court reaffirmed
Roe
but allowed the states more leeway in regulating abortions. Justice Kennedy’s lead opinion appealed to the American people to respect their decision and accept a woman’s right to an abortion as the law of the land, a lawyer’s way of saying, “Trust us. We know what we’re doing.”’
    Ms. Roberts jumped back into the fray.
    ‘How are we supposed to trust those guys when Kennedy can write that nonsense in
Casey
?’ She read off her laptop: ‘Quote, “At the heart of liberty is