Response to “the (apparent) long-awaited repeal of Roe v. Wade and its disturbing response from abortion advocates” – The Lion’s Roar

To Dylan Meche, Opinion Editor:

I think it would be a gross understatement to call this opinion piece woefully ignorant and – to use the words of a trusted mentor – simple-minded. This opinion, and the written opinion given by Supreme Court Justice Alito, run counter to the fact that the goal of the United States government is to serve the interests of its citizens and that the majority of Americans support women’s right to a safe abortion. This has been the consensus for 50 years.

Despite what “pro-birth” proponents (because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the anti-abortion stance is pro-life) seem to like to say, the majority of abortions are not the result of a whim. , and are often matters of difficult and emotionally traumatic tragedy. There are many factors that can make a pregnancy unsustainable and it is many parents’ worst nightmare. Nevertheless, I would support leaving the choice to individuals even in the case of a potentially viable pregnancy. It has always been difficult for women to independently obtain effective forms of contraception. This situation is compounded by many states, including Louisiana, which are introducing legislation to restrict or ban many forms of contraception. This position is based exclusively on a religious argument, which is grounds for invalidating it as potential legislation by the separation of church and state in our government. The United States of America is not a theocracy, at least not yet, and a person’s religious views are not grounds for legislative action.

I would also like to say that Justice Alito’s apparent indifference to the constitutional location of the right to abortion, asserted in Roe v. Wade, is a drastic rejection – intentional or not – of the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, which states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or denigrate others held by the people.” Many commonly recognized rights of the American people, decided by the results of legal precedents, are based on this fundamental element of our Constitution. If Supreme Court justices cannot be expected to uphold even this value of our Constitution, how are we, the people, going to respond? Alito argued that the 14th Amendment does not expressly state the basis of the Roe v Wade consensus, but the 14th Amendment, Section 1 clearly reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which would restrict the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If this only gives Judge Alito the “feeling” that the right to abortion is constitutionally supported, I can’t help but think that he willfully ignores both the explicit statement and the well-intentioned founded on the Constitution.

However, this opinion piece does not come from Judge Alito. This piece is a regurgitation of the feelings of many religious people who call themselves “pro-life”. I very much disagree with the label, as it is usually attached to conservatives who have often shown a disregard for life after birth, hence my use of the old “pro-birth” label. Again, our personal and religious views are no ground for controlling what women can or cannot do with their bodies in the interests of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in America. Making abortions illegal in any state will not prevent abortions. This will only multiply unsafe abortions.

I’m afraid my letter didn’t last long enough, since the guest said to keep it short. In this case, I welcome any opportunity to deepen and debate. I will continue to defend the individual right of women to obtain a safe and legal abortion in all cases.

Gavin Vinin


Graduate Assistant

Previous 'Two extremes' push Tiny to balance short-term rentals
Next FG, UNIDO commits to improve sewage discharge standards