Pennies on the Railway Tracks
Old copper pennies are easily squashed
If you lay them on the track when the loco approaches
When they are as mashed as sweet potatoes
They are almost the same colour as
Old stogies retrieved from the ballast
Brown, grey and greasy with age and misuse
Can show their grief like discarded detritus
Three roads congealed in an unctuous wood
Surrounded by discarded rubber tyres
Slowly decaying and ever so slowly indeed
Becoming the commentary of our lives - our failures
Dred Scott
The U.S Supreme Court is often accused of ducking the issue and/or becoming too political in its judgements. Throughout history when the court decides or is forced to decide on contentious issues there are usually extreme consequences. Many people believe that the Dred Scott case was the single most obvious cause of the Civil War. People opposed to slavery views, quite rightly, the decision as the death knell for a peaceful resolution to this most controversial of issues.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case
It would seem from reports that the Court is again treading into deep water, this time on the issue of abortion.
https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade
This issue has often confused and puzzled me. On a personal level there are two issues. Firstly, is an unborn foetus which without intervention from an outside force would be born a citizen of the U.S. and, if so, are they entitled to the protection the Constitution provides to all citizens? Secondly, does the government, either Federal or State or Local, have the power to enforce any decision based in law on all citizens?
On the first issue: I have always supported the protection of the unborn. My opinion is that at conception a new human life comes into existence and should therefore be protected. On the second issue, I do not believe that any branch of the government has the right to dictate to any citizen what is essentially a private matter. Hopefully, dear reader, you can see the dichotomy here at work.
I elaborate; before you start throwing petrol bombs at my house.
Most of our laws have at their heart the protection the state is due to provide to its citizens. So, legally we are back to Dred Scott.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,”
If the unborn is a citizen then abortion is clearly illegal and the Supreme Court is within its juristiction to rule that way under the equal rights provisions of the 14th amendment.
But, if the unborn is not a citizen then the Supreme Court is not entitled to extend any protection to it, same as Dred Scott.
What is supremely interesting here is the line-up on both sides of the debate.
On the one hand we have very conservative Republicans who seem to support the rights of the unborn in calling for abortion reform.and the repeal of Roe v Wade. On the other hand we have Democrats who view this as an infringement of the rights of the individual enshrined in the Constitution and demand that Roe v Wade is upheld in its present form, or something very close to it.
It would be nice to think that there is some room for compromise here. I confess I can see none.
The Republican Platform (from their website)
“Republicans believe in liberty, economic prosperity, preserving American values and traditions, and restoring the American dream for every citizen of this great nation. As a party, we support policies that seek to achieve those goals.
Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America's greatness for our children and grandchildren.
The Republican Party's legacy -- we were originally founded in 1854 for the purpose of ending slavery -- compels us to patriotically defend America's values. As the left attempts to destroy what makes America great, the Republican Party is standing in the breach to defend our nation and way of life.”
So, you may wonder, why would Republicans be so against abortion as it seems to be guaranteed by the Constitution as a matter for the states or the people? A very good question.
Could it be that they see this policy as a vote-winner?
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a political party cut its cloth to fit the stripes it is currently wearing. Is this policy a vote-winner for Republicans?
Personally, I can’t see how.
If the Supreme Court rules that Row v Wade goes, the power to ban or allow abortion then reverts to the states. Some have already said they will enact legislation to enable abortion. Others won't. Some women will be supportive, especially in states that don’t like abortion, say like Texas. But, in those states there will be some women who don’t support a ban. Who will they vote for - surely the Democrats.
Ok, so what about the reverse? States that enact enabling abortion legislation may suffer in so far as women who support the ban stop voting Democrat. Hang on - surely not many women who support an abortion ban currently vote Democrat. Now seldom is there a one issue election, but I fear the Republican party are in danger of making the next one simply about abortion. For the party of Lincoln this could be an absolute disaster!
It was in no small part the Dred Scott decision that pushed the North towards a conflict with the South. Lincoln in particular wanted to ban slavery from the expanding Union and Dred Scott put a nail right through that plan. The Missouri Compromise was dead, and declared dead by the Supreme Court. Now there was no real way to prevent slavery from expanding throughout the Union. With that realisation the Republican Party was formed and the rest, as they say, is history.
History can repeat itself. If the Court rules against Roe v Wade there will be a split not only in Congress but also in the nation.
Is there any way this tragedy can be avoided? The prospects are not good.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
The toxic debate and hysteria from both parties is not likely to be quelled easily.
Notwithstanding that there are people with strong views on both sides; there is evidence that the country, whilst divided, has no appetite for a repeal. Perhaps this can be parlayed into some sort of compromise consensus?
On a personal level, I believe that following the traditions of the Republican Party the government has no business interfering in the lives of citizens for some partisan advantage, real or imagined. I do not believe that a government of whatever persuasion should dictate to women what they should do regarding abortion. They can and should provide good health care for all women, good advice about contraception to all women, and good, safe abortion care to all women who wish it.
The Supreme Court might do better in remembering how the Dred Scott decision led in an almost straight line to the most bloody conflict in American History.
Couple that with the lessons of the 18th Amendment ( governments who try to legislate on what is essentially a private moral decision run the risk of mass civil disobedience ). I’m assuming that no one wants that? I fear that is where we may be heading.
