Is Biden too Late? The President’s Resonse to the Roe v. Wade Overturn

Biden signed an executive order to protect abortion rights and rights to privacy in the face of the Roe v. Wade overturn—a vetted decision made by the Supreme Court.

To weigh in on the matter, I first had to gather my thoughts. Of course, the overturn of such a law made national headlines, upsetting many women in the wake of what one might consider to be the “darkest time in US history”.

However, the question begs: Were abortion rights just a political talking point? A ploy and voting tactic used by both the left and right to secure votes during the primary elections?

Considering the fact that Roe v. Wade was never a constitutional law to begin with, but rather, just an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, one might wonder why this law wasn’t ratified into the amendment in the first place.

Ever since the law was proposed, the US has upheld it as a constitutional right—one backed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The interpretation of this Amendment led to the belief that privacy was indeed a constitutional right, and several legislative bodies have interpreted segments of the Amendment, including abortion rights.

But Roe v. Wade was decided in 1972, and the US government, at least at the Federal level, could’ve made this an official part of the amendment.

So why didn’t they?

Today, we see President Biden create an executive order to protect women’s health, but in short, it’s too late.

In 1972, Roe made the case for safe clinical abortion under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

(View the Full Argument Here)

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Amendment IV
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Amendment V
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment XIV
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

(View the Full Constitution Here)

With respect to the Roe v. Wade argument, Texas had determined that life begins at conception, and that if the Fourteenth Amendment can be applied to a pregnant woman, it should also be applied to the unborn child, who is, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, a US citizen, who should be granted full protection and privileges of the law.

Note that the Roe v. Wade case was simply a landmark decision that the US Supreme Court ruled on at the time of the hearing.

In 1973, the Supreme Court determined that no state had the right to prevent a woman from having access to an abortion, but in the same breath, this ruling was not codified in any form of Amendment.

Instead, it was left open to interpretation and subject to change if another court case challenged such a ruling, which happened this year.

Those who argue with the ruling have failed to realize how the country as a whole has never been in favor of the citizens. The Democratic Party, which held power most of the time, failed to institutionalize this ruling because having something as sensitive as this in the open air gave them a talking point.

It gave way to political agendas and games played on both the left and right to win votes from each side of the election.

In 1973, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the fundamental right to privacy, which includes abortion, but it is not expressly outlined in the Amendment. Clauses have been added over the years to fully outline the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and what it can and cannot be applied to.

Now that Biden has signed an executive order, the question comes: what next? What else can the Supreme Court overturn?

(See: Biden’s Executive Order)

The simple conclusion seen here is that access to abortion has been returned to the state. Each state now has a decision to make concerning abortion access, but most importantly, each individual has a right to be involved in state elections and laws.

For a while, Americans have neglected their duties as voting citizens and have instead asked the federal government for assistance. This, in turn, increases federal taxes and gives the government more control over the people, which is opposite to what the founding fathers foresaw.

Now that Roe v. Wade is overturned, it should give every voting person the insight to attend local elections, get involved in local politics, and demand more from their state governments, rather than expect federal assistance.

However, most importantly, a lesson should be learned from this—it is simply not enough to depend on Supreme Court rulings and their interpretation of the Amendment. A Supreme Court decision can be overturned at any time, and it can be used by both sides of the political party as talking points to win votes. If it is law, it should be codified.

Disclaimer: Please note that this post is neither in favor of nor against abortion or abortion rights, nor does it present a personal opinion on the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. Instead, it serves as a commentary on US law and its meaning for US citizens. Please engage in a healthy discussion. Thanks.