Written by Kaherdin Clohan Bonnet (News Writer)
The Supreme Court plans to Hear a Mississippi law that will contradict Roe Vs. Wade Despite Roe vs. Wade had passed on January 22nd, 1973, forty-eight years ago, Mississippi has decided to put forth regulations on abortion that would go against the famous supreme court trial.
The law in question aims to ban any and all abortion procedures taking place after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, at which time the fetus would resemble a human child, but still be far from complete with development; but with a republican majority supreme court at this time, they may end up doing more than simply reviewing it.
This Mississippi law has been on the waiting list for quite some time now, as it was originally put up last Fall, sometime before the replacement of Justice Ruth Bater Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barret, which turned the tides in the courtroom to the Republican majority. This case was supposed to be reviewed and discussed by the members of the court over ten times before they finally announced recently that they would look it over.
When asked how she felt about the restrictive law in question, Mary Calden, a high school freshman here at SLVHS, felt that “The idea of taking away the right to abortion is an all-around horrible idea. Nothing good will come of it, it will take away the option of safe abortions,” which brings up the argument about how people may seek out illegal and under the radar abortion clinics, similar to what happened during prohibition except with a medical procedure instead of a simple bottle of alcohol. Mary continued, “People implementing these laws don’t appear to care about the babies at all, more just the idea of controlling women’s bodies. We should be focusing on helping those who are already alive. The adoption system is overcrowded and the foster system needs tons of help. There is a better use for our time than laws that won’t actually prevent abortion from occurring.” Romania’s twenty-year abortion ban has given lots of evidence and proof to Mary’s and many others’ argument about people turning to underground and unsafe abortions that take place out of sight from the law enforcement.
Mary’s statement goes on, “Access to safe and legal abortion is a human right, people should stop putting restrictions on women’s bodies.”
Mary’s argument makes a lot of sense and has plenty of truth to it, as laws have rarely ever stopped people from doing what has been banned.
Restricting and regulating abortion is regulating a person’s body and therefore regulating a person. Whether one may think it is or isn’t morally wrong or morally sound, it is still a regulation over one’s self and what medical procedures they should and shouldn’t have access to, and access to Medicare is considered a human right.
There are many things, such as the death penalty, which are similar hot topics as people are either on one side or the other, but what makes the ongoing debate on abortion different is how many factors there are to be weighed in. People will put forth evidence about how developed the fetus is, what situation the person who is needing an abortion may be in, the adoption and foster child systems, what the father thinks, how many weeks pregnant the mother is, and so much more. Many of which could normally be enough to sway a regular John or Jane Doe in one direction or the other, yet due to the fact that many people’s thoughts and feelings on this matter tend to be religious (mostly in the case of people who are anti-abortion) or wrapped up in women’s rights (for those who are pro-choice). Religion and women’s rights are both important things that people would never simply let go of, which creates a debate where no matter what evidence is presented in either direction, people are very unlikely to change their stance.
The Claw 