The twist on the right to abortion is eroding citizens ’faith in the foundations of democracy in the United States. The expected decision of the Supreme Court to bring the blind spot of US democracy to the center of attention, writes ‘s US correspondent Iida Tikka.
WASHINGTON. Are we going to show our minds again? So far, it has not helped.
This message has been repeated in recent days on U.S. social media as many Americans prepare to protest for the right to abortion. Their faith in peaceful action is already beginning to crumble. So is faith in American democracy.
On Monday night, Politico online media released the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision, which got the protesters on their feet. It is clear from the draft that the court intends to set aside a 50-year precedent that has guaranteed a national right to abortion.
The overthrow of the so-called Roe v. Wade has been an important goal of the Conservative movement for decades and is now closer than ever.
The draft is not yet available official decision of the Supreme Court. However, if the position of the majority of judges does not change, decision-making power will be transferred to the Länder. That, in turn, automatically means an almost total ban on abortion for millions of women.
Nearly half of U.S. states have already enacted laws that severely restrict the right to abortion, as conservative lawmakers are preparing to set a precedent.
However, the effects go even deeper. The overthrow of the right to abortion already undermines voters’ faith in democracy, and the significance of the resolution for other existing and future laws is worrying.
About the particularly bitter situation makes it a fact that, if the resolution materializes, the right to abortion will collapse as the Democrats are the ruling party in the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.
The full political power of the Democrats in the legislature is therefore not enough to guarantee the policies pursued by the Democrats.
The real legislative power seems to be exercised rather by the Supreme Court, whose power relations are determined at random. Six of the nine judges have been appointed by the Republican president. Democratic presidents have appointed only three judges, a total equal to that of the former president Donald Trump named during one presidency.
The role of the Supreme Court is, in theory, to be a body that interprets whether laws enacted by the federal or state laws comply with the constitution.
In practice, however, the Supreme Court has become a legislature in the U.S. system, in part because Congress is in a knot because of the so-called delay speech practice. The majority of laws require a 60-majority majority in the one-hundred-seat Senate.
Guaranteeing such a large majority has been very difficult for both parties. For Republicans, the situation is favorable, as the party is in favor of little regulation.
For Democrats, on the other hand, it is a problem. The party must not pass through its bills because Republicans are opposed to strengthening state power, whether it be legislation related to the environment, large corporations, or even the equality of citizens. It frustrates voters.
When the federal legislature is paralyzed by its own practices, the importance of state-level legislation in national legislation is also emphasized. States may enact laws that determine the laws of the entire country through the judgments of the Supreme Court.
In addition to the right to abortion, the Conservative-majority Supreme Court has taken up many cases during the current term that could affect the entire country. The court is to decide, for example, how much the states can interfere with the right to bear arms, and how carefully religion should be kept separate from teaching. In addition, several cases related to voting laws are expected to be heard by the jury.
Liberal voters are therefore not only concerned about the right to abortion, but much deeper.
This concern is compounded by the how the judge wrote the draft decision Samuel Alito justifies the overthrow of the Roe v Wade precedent.
According to Alito, the right to abortion is not enshrined in the Constitution, so it is not a right that should be enjoyed by every American. Instead, according to Alito, the decision-making power over abortion rests with the state-elected legislators.
In fact, very few rights in modern American life are enshrined in the Constitution, but it is a matter of interpreting the law and its appendices.
Roe v Wade is based on an interpretation that citizens have a right to privacy.
Nor is the protection of privacy directly enshrined in the Constitution, although many existing laws are based on the interpretation that the citizen has a right to privacy. These include the law on the right to buy birth control pills and the right to marry people of the same sex or color.
The Conservative jury therefore sets questioned by its decision as a justification for the protection of privacy by law. It does not bode well for an era in which data and data privacy is an increasingly important issue. Especially in the home country of social media giants.
In its draft resolution, Alito emphasizes that the Roe v Wade decision does not jeopardize any other laws.
However, it does not comfort women who are secretly trying to travel to another state to obtain an abortion or perform it at home. The right to privacy is their only security.