Letters: Religion has no place in SCOTUS rulings; Extreme and dangerous candidate
Religion has no place in SCOTUS rulings
An early book by the late Rush Limbaugh, “The Way Things Ought To Be,” reinforces the obvious: Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion on how things should be, and is free to write or speak out about their beliefs.
Except the Supreme Court.
The justices of the highest court in the land should issue rulings based on law and precedent, not what fits their preference of how things “ought to be.”
The justices who overturned Roe are Catholics (Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic and is now Episcopalian). The Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage, abortion and contraceptives. As a private organization, it’s their right to hold and enforce these positions on their members — and I’m not criticizing the Catholic Church, but for these justices (five men/one woman) to overturn established law because they don’t like it, or because it conflicts with their religious convictions, is unacceptable.
After overturning Roe, Clarence Thomas says three other landmark cases should be reconsidered: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (right to private sexual practice), and Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage). Will justices again rule based on their religion revoking these rights from millions of Americans?
That’s not “the way things ought to be.”
Ironically, conservatives who strongly object to same-sex marriage often also object to interracial marriage. What if a case came to SCOTUS seeking to overturn Loving v. Virginia (which struck down prohibition of interracial marriage in 1967)?
How would Justice Thomas vote on that one?
Extreme and dangerous candidate
Despite a vocal minority who favor full abortion bans, most Americans support a balanced approach to abortion laws. In fact, 85% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in some cases. There is particularly strong support for legal abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother, even among Republicans.
As a State Senator, Doug Mastriano sponsored legislation that would ban most abortions after about 6 weeks. Most women are just learning they are pregnant and do not have time to schedule and receive medical care prior to 6 weeks.
But Mastriano’s beliefs appear to be even more extreme. While campaigning for Governor, he has been asked if he supports exceptions for rape, incest and the life and health of the mother. He has repeatedly said he does not support exceptions. Extremism like this does not reflect America’s beliefs or values and could be incredibly dangerous for women.
Americans know that pregnancy is complicated and abortion laws need to be balanced. We can already see the negative consequences from extreme abortion laws in other states. Doctors are facing brutal choices between legal penalties for themselves or providing women with appropriate medical care. Young rape victims are being denied care.
Governors make decisions every day that require nuanced thinking about complex topics. We cannot give someone the power of the Governor’s office who advocates for laws this simplistic and dangerous. Mastriano is too extreme to be our next governor.
The power of women
Not since Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata in 411 B.C. have women had a greater opportunity to influence what happens in a country. The country to which I am referring is the good old USA. Given the women’s movement since they have obtained the right to vote in 1920, the influence of women in the political arena has been increasing, in case you hadn’t noticed.
The recent Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade has seemingly awakened women over much of the world to the power they possess, especially if they would vote as a bloc rather than individually. We all know that all women do not agree that abortion should be either legal or illegal, but it appears that there is a strong emphasis on having the right to abortions.
If enough women followed the example of the women Aristophanes portrayed in his play, then they could put a great deal of pressure on men to support political candidates that would support legalizing abortions. The repercussions could be earth-shaking. Who knows what the side effects might be?
Imagine that.