Member-only story
Some viewpoints are more complex than we understand.
Intellectually, I concur with the repeal of Roe. This doesn’t mean that I approve of it, or that I would have voted for repeal had I been on the Supreme Court.
It means that I don’t think Roe was ruled on the proper basis. Women’s rights, their equal rights, should not be based on a “right to privacy.” Women’s rights are fundamental human rights—they are inalienable rights which nobody, no courts, no governments, no corporations, no individuals, nobody has a right to violate.
It’s not about privacy. Or shouldn’t be.
But courts really don’t care about principles or the meaning or purpose of the law. They care about the outcomes. They either want to protect women’s rights or they want to remove those rights. The majority on the Supreme Court do not respect women, and therefore are opposed to those rights and ruled accordingly.
Now, had I been on the courts, I would have voted to retain Roe because I, too, care about outcomes. I want a just and humane outcome, which would have been respect for women and their rights. But my opinion would have described my reasoning, which is different from the rationalization used by the Court to repeal Roe.
