Some might think the potential loss of abortion rights provided by Roe v. Wade is no big deal because it won’t affect them.
Think again.
How do you define abortion?
More importantly, how do some anti-abortionists define that term?
Surprisingly some define abortion as including contraception because contraception interferes with “potential life.”
If the pro-lifers win the abortion wars, they will next target the right to contraception.
I have personal knowledge of this.
Before I was a lawyer, I was a news reporter covering courts in Texas.
I interviewed several anti-abortionists who were very candid about their intent to abolish the right to birth control.
That candor ceased when they realized they might lose support if the public understood their ultimate agenda.
And if Justice Alito’s leaked opinion provides any guidance, there’s no assurance that the U.S. Supreme Court will provide a safe haven for the right to contraception.
Although Page 62 of the draft opinion provides that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion” arguably that wording simply references the unremarkable fact that the current case at the Supreme Court addresses abortion, not contraception.
When the Supreme Court takes up the inevitable anti-contraception case, the question of whether the federal constitution protects the underlying privacy rights will be faced head on.
Fundamental rights involve complex issues.
We need to define terms and think carefully.
Otherwise we could end up in a minefield of unintended consequences.
Cheryl Nielson
Port Angeles