The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has been met with praise from “pro-lifers” and consternation from “pro-aborts.” However, the reality is that the ruling doesn’t really do much of anything at all, other than demonstrate the ineptness of the Supreme Court.
The 5-4 ruling to overturn Roe makes two arguments: (1) abortion is not a constitutional right and (2) abortion does not violate the Constitution.
It is a schizophrenic conclusion: abortion is not a constitutional right, yet murdering a baby is not necessarily unconstitutional.
The final paragraph in the syllabus of the ruling summarizes the Court’s incompetence: “Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
In other words, on the issue of abortion, “We don’t know, and anything goes.”
The question of whether humans should be murdered, the Republican Justices argue, ought to be determined by the “democratic process.”
Ostensibly, then, if the “democratic process” determines that all babies can be murdered in the womb, these Republican Justices would see no conflict with that bloodshed and the U.S. Constitution.
Roe v. Wade was a preposterous and unjust ruling, but Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not actually rule in the other direction—it simply attempts to occupy some sort of neutral ground. The five Republican Justices basically punted the ball on the most fundamental duty of government: protect people from evil. They said, in effect, “Let each state decide if babies should be murdered.”
The ruling demonstrates (once again) that there is absolutely no use whatsoever for the Supreme Court. The Court cannot even make the most fundamental judgment of all: taking an innocent human life with malice aforethought is murder.
If the Court cannot see that babies should not be murdered, and instead simply returns the question to the “democratic process” of each state, what exactly can the Court rule on? The Republican-appointed Justices’ ruling amounts to nothing more than an open admission that the Supreme Court is useless.
The ruling effectively sends the abortion issue “back to the states.” But that is where it has been all along. States have legislated varying types of abortion laws during Roe’s tenure. Various states, such as Louisiana, have even had abolitionist bills put forward, only to be rejected by “pro-life” Republicans. All it would have taken to outlaw abortion was men with backbones and the fear of the Lord, regardless of Roe v. Wade.
Now that Roe is “overturned” we still need men with backbones and the fear of the Lord to outlaw abortion. Sadly, overturning Roe will not change the fact that many civil rulers seem to care more about political expediency than protecting life.
Now, as far as it goes, I have been arguing for years that the states can and should outlaw all abortion regardless of any SCOTUS ruling—so I’m not against the idea that states should be free from federal oversight (though not free from divine oversight). The Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution on many levels, including the fact that they did not establish a Supreme Court.
But if we are to have a Supreme Court, what exactly is it’s use if it cannot even determine whether murder goes against the Constitution? To present the issue of abortion as a “profound moral question” is to betray your judicial incompetence. It’s not profound, it’s simple: “You shall do no murder” (Exodus 20:13).