(New York) One of the provisions of the bill appears to be straight out of the days when slavery was still widespread in the United States.
Posted at 6:00 am
Passed by the Connecticut legislature in late April, it prohibits the extradition to another state of anyone who practices or facilitates abortion in the constitutional state. The measure could be necessary if women from a state that treats abortion as murder – a clear possibility after a reversal of “Roe v. Wade” – traveling to Connecticut to end an unwanted pregnancy. It is inspired by measures taken before the Civil War by free states where fugitive slaves took refuge.
The parallels between slavery and abortion are not new. In Burning MattersIn her recent collection of essays, Margaret Atwood employs a metaphor that has long been part of the rhetorical arsenal of some pro-choice activists.
Nobody forces women to have abortions. Nobody should force her to give birth. Force a birth if you wish, but at least call the impertinence what it is. This is slavery: the right to own and control another’s body and to benefit from that right.
Margaret Atwood, author of The Scarlet Maiden
The anti-abortion movement is no exception. For decades he has compared the “Roe v. Wade” to the decision “Scott v. Sandford,” considered by experts to be the worst ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Written in 1857 by the President of America’s Supreme Court, it concluded that black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress had exceeded its powers by abolishing slavery in the new American territories forbidden.
In this case it is the unborn child that is compared to a slave.
From Taney to Alito
” [“Roe”] This isn’t the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denies the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 has not been reversed in a day, a year, or even a decade,” said former Republican President Ronald Reagan, less than 10 years after the historic ruling that gave women a constitutional right to abortion acknowledged.
It actually took a civil war and two amendments, the 13thand and 14and, adopted in 1865 and 1868 to “Scott v. Sandford”.
The “deer v. Wade” has yet to be officially overthrown. But many pundits and commentators are now comparing Judge Samuel Alito’s draft to Judge Roger Taney’s decision in the Dred Scott case.
The latter thought to appease the strong tensions that tore the United States around the question of slavery in the middle of the 19th centuryand Century. By enforcing his pro-slavery stance, he only contributed to a civil war that killed an estimated 620,000 soldiers from 1861 to 1865.
Judge Alito also sees a solution to the “adverse consequences” of the “Roe v. Wading.” He proposes taking away this fundamental right, recognized for almost 50 years, and giving states the job of deciding whether they can have an abortion within their borders or even elsewhere in the United States.
For his part, by enforcing his anti-abortion position, Judge Alito could help fuel tensions tearing his country apart.
It was no longer the right to own slaves that would mark the division of the American states, but the right to abortion.
Although recent polls show that a strong majority of Americans oppose Roe v. Wade”.
From Lincoln to Biden
Democrats will want to capitalize on this opposition in the coming months and see it as an issue that could help them run in November’s midterm elections.
They will get to work on Wednesday by debating a bill in the Senate to codify the Roe c. Wade” in federal law. They already know they won’t be able to get the 60 out of 100 votes needed to move the text forward under a rule known as “filibuster.”
But they hope to draw the electorate’s attention to the Republican senators’ vote.
All of America will be watching. Republicans won’t be able to hide from the American people, and they won’t be able to hide from their role in bringing Roe to an end.
Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, announced the vote last Thursday
Some pro-choice activists would have preferred Joe Biden to take inspiration from Abraham Lincoln from the start of his presidency to avoid finding himself in the current situation. During the Civil War, the first Republican president convinced Congress to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten to ensure an anti-slavery and anti-union majority.
But Joe Biden has refused to support calls from the Democratic left to add more Supreme Court justices. Amendment that would have acted as a counterweight to Republican maneuvers that led to the controversial confirmations by Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
In any event, as things stand, “expanding” the Supreme Court would have required abolishing the “filibuster,” a solution opposed by at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
However, after the election of a Republican president, would senators from this party hesitate to abolish the “filibuster” in favor of passing an abortion ban law nationally, which is a possibility? The answer might make Margaret Atwood’s metaphor even more unsettling.
A slap in the face for women
America’s elected Democrats on Sunday showed their determination to defend abortion rights. The Supreme Court has “slapped” women by not respecting their ability to “when” start a family and the “size” of the latter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned on CBS. “This is something so serious, personal and disrespectful to women. Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vowed to fight to keep abortion rights guaranteed and pledged “not to give up.” “It’s the biggest fight of a generation. We would be semi-citizens after that decision. And if it becomes law, it will change the fundamentals of America,” she told CNN. For her part, Republican-elect Nancy Mace, who is opposed to abortion, advocated a rape exception. Nancy Mace told CBS that she herself was raped and that, given the “physical, emotional trauma,” the decision should be made by the woman involved, “her doctor,” and “God.”
Media Agency France