Below is my column in USA Today about the misleading claims surrounding the recent abortion ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson and the protections available to women on issues ranging from travel to contraceptives. There are good faith concerns about the reasoning and implications of the decision. There’s no need to create unfounded fears about things like interstate travel or birth control. The president and the court appear in the agreement. Now is the time for citizens to vote on the issue of abortion and any restrictions on this state-based right.
Here is the column:
Court, consider the challenge accepted. those The reproachful words of President Jo Biden Last week, probably in order to rally Anemic political base In the words of the president, “vote, vote, vote, vote”.
Ironically, that was the only part of the president’s speech that was consistent with what the court said in its decision on the matter. Women’s Health Organization Dobbs v. Jackson. In overturning Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that millions of citizens, not nine justices, should now decide the issue. Abortion.
In its decision, the court said that in 1973 “Roe came to an abrupt end [a] political process” of countries dealing with this issue Abortion. Now it’s brought it back to the states and basically said, “Get it done.” The court did not declare it illegal Abortion or favor any particular outcome beyond telling people to “vote, vote, vote, vote.”
There are good faith objections to the court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Many believe that the Constitution implicitly protects this right. What is striking, however, is how the president and other Democratic politicians and pundits have attacked the decision for positions he has not explicitly rejected or openly supported. In fact, parts of the president Abortion The proposed response is based on existing threats to rights not affected by this decision.
While few legislators have done so proposed such ruleslimit travel It has already been tried in court with consistently devastating results. For example, the court unanimously struck down the California law Edwards v. California which tried to prevent poor people from entering the state. Discrimination against non-residents of a state has been repeatedly held to be unconstitutional Clause of privileges and immunities.
Right travel It can also be based on the following items Commercial section, which prevents governments from discriminating or unduly suppressing interstate commerce. The court has long defended it“The right to freely enter and leave other countries.”
More importantly, the majority of judges in Dobbs decision denied this claim. In his concurrence, Judge Brett Kavanaugh called the claim “not particularly difficult as a constitutional matter” and said any ban would fail “on the basis of the constitutional right to interstate.” travel“
With Chief Justice John Roberts, that means the five justices clearly see the rules they strike down. travel As it is unconstitutional and the expectation is that the decision on such a law can be unanimous or almost unanimous. Placing this in the federal response is just as important as outright banning contractual misconduct. “Been there, done that,” the court would likely say.
Biden It also continued to raise the specter of contraceptive bans, which were also expressly and repeatedly rejected by the courts. The court stated that “Abortion As Roe and Casey acknowledge, it is fundamentally different.
Still, the majority of justices said some critics of the Dobbs decision would make that claim, noting that “it may be designed to create unfounded fears that our decision will jeopardize these other rights.”
Even Justice Clarence Thomas who It called for a reexamination of the constitutional basis for rights such as contraception“I agree,” he said flatly.[n]something in [the Court’s] The opinion should be understood to cast doubt on unrelated records Abortion“
Biden He is not alone in seeking to exploit a problem not created by the creed. For example, Democratic politicians have claimed This makes it difficult or impossible for women to decide whether to seek medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.
Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, DN, Y., argued that the presumptive ban on due process for Harassment of Judge Kavanagh at a restaurant in Washington, DC. She He tweeted: “Poor boy. He left before his souffle, because he decided that half the country should be in danger of dying if they had an ectopic pregnancy in the wrong conditions.”
And so have professors like Harvard professor Laurence Tribe has given credence to this claim.
It is completely false.
Once a pregnancy is implanted in the fallopian tube, the pregnancy is not acceptable and treatment is not acceptable Abortion subject to these prohibitions. particle for direct object Methods and drugs are completely different. In addition, the rules in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana
Nevertheless, Biden announced that it was considering declaring a “national health emergency”. If it does, it will extend the use of A Public health emergency Beyond any prior request and beyond what his government states, when “1) a disease or disorder indicates a PHE, or 2) a PHE, including a significant outbreak of infectious disease or bioterrorism attacks, otherwise; It should be used.
Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council. He confessed to reporters that they looked at the option and saw no material benefit to taking this unprecedented step, as there were only “tens of thousands of dollars” in the government’s public health emergency fund and declaring a state of emergency “wouldn’t free up a significant amount.” legal authority.” It also raises potential legal challenges.
However, the value of declaring a public health emergency is primarily to address a political emergency Biden. Recent surveys show Biden‘s Approval rate up to 30%. and 64 percent of Democrats, According to a New York Times pollsomeone other than Biden As his party’s candidate for the presidency in 2024.
Dobbs’ decision gives the Democrats a glimmer of hope for the midterm elections Some party leaders believe that they should be “scared of this issue.” [voters] And make them come out.”
The president need not defend unthreatened rights or invoke unsupported powers to campaign Abortion Rights. The right to choose remains a powerful constitutional issue without undermining this campaign by a parade of hypothetical horrors that dissipate upon closer scrutiny.
The president’s call to “vote, vote, vote, vote” is like a court call. However The outcome may not be as clear cut as the president suggests In a country where only 34% support it Abortion in the second quarter and only 19% in the third quarter.
As the president said, “It’s a choice. This is a moment.” In time, we will understand what this choice will be and what this moment will mean for the country.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.