I had never thought of it that way before, but then I began putting things into perspective. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. After eight years of Reagan, four years of the first Bush, and eight years of the neocon goon whose time is almost up, abortion rights are still alive and well. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court is even CLOSE to overturing Roe. George W. Bush's two nominees to the high court, despite being solidly conservative, are not so to the extent that the far right wing crowd, and probably even President Bush himself, had hoped for. Being staunchly pro-choice myself, I insist the warning thundered by the Democrats that the two newest judges are deadset on ruling against abortion rights is simply unfounded.
Recent proof of this is a decision from last year's Supreme Court term, Federal Express v. Holowecki, (06-1322). In this case, a total of 14 current and former employees at Federal Express sued for age discrimination under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). FedEx tried to get one employee's suit thrown out because the employee had not filled out the proper "charge form" with the EEOC before filing the lawsuit. This occurred because the EEOC gave her the wrong form. This older lady thought she was filling out the proper form, when it turns out she was not.
If Bush's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, were as far to the right as some people think, they would jump at any chance to throw out a discrimination lawsuit, even on a technicality, since they would not think very highly of employment discrimination laws in the first place. However, only Justices Scalia and Thomas, as you'd reasonably expect, jumped at this chance. Neither Roberts nor Alito joined these two in their dissent, and the court ruled 7-2 (coincidentally the same margin the 1973 court decided Roe v Wade) that the employee should not be barred from filing her lawsuit because some incompetent EEOC employee screwed up and gave her the wrong form.
Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy said that the prescribed system for filing charges of employment discrimination "must be accessible to individuals who have no detailed knowledge of the relevant statutory mechanisms and agency processes" and that discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC should be interpreted "to protect the employee's rights and statutory remedies." Both Roberts and Alito joined this opinion, which they surely would not have joined if they possessed the type of "far right" jurisprudence that would lead one to overturn Roe.
If Justices Roberts and Alito were as "far right" as some people insist, they would have joined the dissenting opinion filed by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia), which complained that "the standard the court applies is broader than the ordinary meaning of the word 'charge' . . . a compainant's intent to trigger actions unrelated to a charge-processing plainly cannot form the basis for distinguishing charges from other inquiries." Justice Thomas then went as far to write that even "the clarity and pervasiveness of alleged discrimination is irrelevant to the employee's intent to file a charge." THIS is the type of "far right" jurisprudence that would overturn Roe v. Wade. However, since neither Roberts nor Alito elected to join Thomas's dissent in this case, it is utterly preposterous to insist that either of them would suddenly concur with Thomas and Scalia on the abortion issue. It is therefore ridiculous to conclude that the Supreme Court is only one vote away from stripping women of their right to choose. There is no legitimate proof or argument to support this.
A few other employment discrimination cases from the recent term further demonstrate my point, in that the two newest justices once again joined an opinion ruling in favor of employees alleging discrimination, thus allowing them to proceed with their claims in the lower courts:
CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431)
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505)
*Another case worth mentioning is Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321). Although in this case, Roberts did join Thomas and Scalia in dissent, Alito actually wrote the majority opinion, ruling in favor of a postal employee who complained she was retaliated against after complaining of age discrimination. Alito declared that under the ADEA, "retaliation for complaining about age discrimination is discrimination based on age, just as retaliation for advocacy on behalf of the black . . . [is] discrimination based on race." An ultra conservative, anti-Roe jurist would never even THINK about making such a declaration!
Also, even if the two newest justices were as "far right" as some still worry they are, that would only mean four votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is one short of a majority. The Democrats then proceed to warn that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the strongest supporter of abortion rights on the court, is getting very old and that if she retires within the next four years and is replaced by a pro-life justice, that would give a fifth vote. This idea is comical because again, there are not four sure votes to overturn Roe (only two), and I guarantee you that there is NO WAY Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down if there is even a chance that her seat would go to a pro-life justice. I guarantee you that the woman would sooner be wheeled into court on a gurney and hooked up to life-support than give her seat to anyone but an abortion rights supporter.
Furthermore, even if worse comes to worse (and it won't for precisely the reasons I've already mentioned), people still don't understand that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would NOT criminalize abortion. A court does not make the law, only interprets it. Overturning Roe would mean that an individual state is allowed to make the decision whether or not abortion remains legal in that state. So if a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion is illegal in her state, I guarantee you that she'll have plenty of states to choose from where she can obtain an abortion legally. Ironically, it would in a way make freedom of choice even more expansive! Again, however, no need to worry since Roe v Wade isn't even close to being overturned anyway and will not be no matter who wins the presidential election.
*Before blindly accepting the Democrats' prophecy of impending doom regarding abortion rights, I encourage you to actually read the Roe v. Wade decision in order to correctly ascertain what the Supreme Court really said. I'll even be ever so kind as to provide a link to the decision:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html
To conclude, the argument that electing McCain and Palin will place abortion rights in jeopardy is deeply flawed. Nonetheless, the Democrats are still pulling their typical tricks on women just to get the female vote. Thankfully, many women, including some Democrats themselves, just aren't buying it anymore.I suppose this teaches us all a valuable lesson: When someone warns you that "the sky is falling," remember to look up and make sure it really is.
No comments:
Post a Comment