Dear editor:
Many right-wing political folk are rejoicing that Justice Kennedy is retiring this month, thinking that a new justice appointed by the POTUS with a very conservative slant and approved by Congress will be the key to overturning "Roe vs. Wade" from the '60s, thus making abortion illegal nationwide. Those folk may need to remember that no appointment makes for a biased position on issues.
Look at the history of justices appointed since the 1950s. Often a GOP POTUS-appointed justice votes on certain issues that ultraright voters consider "liberal." Earl Warren is one of the examples most folk will think of, but there are others. Kennedy, himself, was often the deciding vote on issues many consider "liberal." Any justice is supposed to be unbiased when appointed, thus the extreme vetting before any appointment. Even the new chief justice appointed by President Trump has disappointed the ultraright on occasion.
The right-wingers should also remember that should "Roe vs. Wade" be eventually overturned, and that is a long way down the road with two GOP female senators very much in favor of legal abortion, that states' rights (a political card they always like to draw) come into play. Ten states have already voted through their legislators that abortion will remain legal for them, and all states will have the right to vote on that issue. With the overwhelming change in attitude toward this subject in the last 50 years, the likelihood of banned abortion in the majority is not likely.
The same voters might take note of what happened in Iowa last week. The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a law requiring a 72-hour waiting period for abortion, ruling that the requirement is unconstitutional, invading one's privacy and that "autonomy and dominion over one's body go to the very heart of what it means to be free." The Iowa governor and the Iowa attorney general both defended the law, but the ones bringing the suit (Planned Parenthood of Iowa and the ACLU) won.
I am not a proponent of mass abortion; however, I must agree with the Iowa court when they say that women should have the same right to privacy and use of their bodies as men. The justices (5 to 2) further wrote, "At stake in this case is the right to shape, for oneself, without unwarranted governmental intrusion, one's own identity, destiny, and place in the world."
I do have a problem with so many so-called pro-lifers who never say anything about who feeds, houses and parents those thousands of unwanted children brought into the world. Dear reader, you know who will feed and house them: we taxpayers, including pro-lifers. The parenting by the DHS is often not a good thing for the child. Perhaps the moniker for these lifers should be more accurately pro-birthers. Life goes on after birth, and parenting from babyhood is the key to success in life.
John W. "Doc" Crawford
Hot Springs
Editorial on 07/13/2018