The role of women in society has been slowly evolving.
For most of European and American history, women have been dependent on their fathers or husbands.
There were clear divides.
The wealthy women were ladies of leisure, with some not even tending to their own children.
Some middle-class women kept house, while others took in laundry, assisted in their husbands’ businesses, or did piece work in their homes.
Poor women worked in factories, or were servants.
Movies of the 1920’s through the 1940’s illustrate that the fact of women entering the work force in greater numbers was a major problem for men.
It happened in stages.
At first, women became typists, factory workers, nurses, teachers, and reporters.
A few women ran businesses, usually after their husbands died.
Slowly, women entered more and more male professions, but they always earned less money than men.
1940’s Hollywood script writers observed this “evolution” in the roles of the sexes, and acted by attempting to persuade women that their main societal goal should be marriage and children.
By the late 1980’s, thrillers and comedies didn’t conclude with marriage ceremonies.
Instead, in “romantic” films like 1988’s Working Girl and 2009’s The Proposal, “hard-driving” business women were the butt of jokes.
The main point of most of these “romantic comedies” was that business was a cutthroat world, for which women were emotionally “unsuited.” *
One way of thinking about today’s anti-abortion movement is that it isn’t just about preserving human life.
It’s about men being dominant over women.
The current President promises to “protect” and “take care” of American women, whether they “like it or not.”
Not being able to end a pregnancy, and not being able to obtain adequate birth control methods, makes women dependent on the men.
It’s still almost impossible for any poor or middle-class woman to raise a child on her own.
I recently discovered the book Sex and the Constitution.
Geoffrey R. Stone’s book was published in 2017.
Yet, I had not heard of this 668-page book, until I found it in a used book shop.
In Mr. Stone’s book, I learned that the Supreme Court justices who decided Roe vs Wade, in a 7-2 decision (1973), relied on far different opinions than the justices who overturned Roe vs Wade in 2022.
Indeed, one of the justices (Harry Blackmun) spent hours in the Mayo Clinic Library reviewing books and articles on the history and practice of abortion.
Justice Blackmun asked in his draft opinion:
What. . . did it mean to say that a doctor can legally perform an abortion only to save the life of a woman? Did this mean that the doctor could perform an abortion “only when, without it, the patient will surely die?. . . Must death be imminent?”
Justice Blackmun’s sensitivity to this issue is a far cry from the “precedents” that Justice Samuel Alito relied upon.
While Blackmun, and the other justices, relied on the latest research, Samuel Alito turned to the 1600’s.
In his draft opinion, he quoted from Sir Mathew Hale (1609-1676), the English witchcraft judge who burned witches, and make marital rape legal.
Doctors in the 21 states that are currently banning abortions assume that the death of the woman must be imminent in order for them to provide an abortion.
As a result of Roe vs Wade being overturned, pregnant women are not being treated by medical professionals, but are instead bleeding out in hospital parking lots.
In contrast to Justice Alito who allied himself with witch-killer Justice Hale, Justice Blackmun pointed out that the “criminalization of abortion was a relatively recent phenomenon” in world history. “At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century . . . a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy that she does in most states today.” Justice Blackmun was talking about women in 1972!
Another fact that I learned in Sex and the Constitution (about the Roe vs Wade decision), was how Justice William J. Brennon (at that time, the only Catholic Justice on the Court) reconciled his own religious beliefs with his responsibilities as a Supreme Court judge:
I wouldn’t under any circumstances condone an abortion in my private life,” but . . . “that has nothing to do with whether or not those who have different views are entitled to have them and are entitled to be protected in their exercise of them. That’s my job in applying and interpreting the Constitution.
Although few admit it, Roe vs Wade was a compromise on abortion.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow states to deny freedoms to its’ citizens, in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of other citizens.
Yet, Roe vs Wade did limit a woman’s freedom by protecting the life of her unborn child, and placing that possible life above her own.
Essentially, Roe vs Wade eliminated a woman’s right to an abortion as soon as her potential progeny became viable.
Medical experts should help Congress work out a national abortion policy that fosters the births of viable infants, as well as the health and well-being of their mothers.
* ”Unsuited” is an interesting word. Does a man-style suit, by design, give a woman authority?
No comments:
Post a Comment