In the wake of a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion which, if it represents a final vote, would overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-choice advocates are marshaling their best — and worst — arguments against removing that ruling’s protections for abortion.

As always, I’ll refrain from sharing my own opinions on abortion as such. I’m not interested in convincing anyone of anything there, if for no other reason than that I’m not firmly convinced myself.

I won’t refrain from sharing my opinions on poor arguments, though. Both in general and on abortion specifically, they’re quite possibly my top pet peeve.  And the worst argument I’m hearing right now is … the envelope, please …

Overturning Roe would be “undemocratic.”

“Overturning Roe v. Wade Shows the Right Has Nothing but Contempt for Democracy,” Ben Beckett writes at Jacobin. “If the decision stands, it will be a high-water mark for the Right’s project of undemocratic rule …. As the draft decision shows, the Supreme Court is arguably the most powerful weapon the Right has for ruling without and against the people.”

Really? The problem isn’t a matter of fundamental individual rights versus state power, but rather of “democracy?”

Let’s take a look at the three underlying cases:

In Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court overturned Articles 1191-1194 and 1196 of Texas’s Penal Code. Those articles and that code were passed by a democratically elected state legislature. The Court overturned “democracy” in favor of what it held was a constitutionally protected individual right.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court further expanded its interpretation of those constitutional protections versus Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act of 1982, once again ruling against a democratically elected state legislature and in favor of a right to abortion.

In the current case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Association, the Court will rule either for or against Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act —  which, you guessed it, was duly passed by a democratically elected state legislature.

If the draft opinion becomes an actual ruling,  democratically elected state legislatures will once again make decisions on abortion law.

That’s the exact opposite of “undemocratic.” It’s full-blown democracy, tip-toeing through the abortion tulips with bells on and playing a ukulele.

Those who claim a constitutional right to abortion might want to reconsider their fetishistic (and in this case, simply incorrect) appeals to “democracy.” There’s something to be said for protection of individual rights against the whims of majorities — and not only on this issue.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On May 2, Politico hit America with a bombshell scoop: A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning the last 50 years of federal jurisprudence on abortion, discarding Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and returning the matter to the states.

Predictable responses ensued: Outrage from pro-choice activists who want Roe left intact, and outrage from Republican commentators that the opinion, which would likely have been released some time in the next two months, was preemptively leaked to the media.

While I naturally have my own opinions on Roe/Casey, and on the current case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), I’m not going to share them here.

And while I get the outrage from the right concerning the leak, it’s not the leak per se that bothers me. It’s the timing.

The leaked draft is labeled “Circulated: February 10, 2022.”

Assuming the document is real (which I have no particular reason to doubt), and that it follows rather than anticipates an actual vote of the Supreme Court’s member justices on the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was decided three months ago — and we may have to wait up to two MORE months before the court gets around to telling us about it.

Most Americans who care about this case seem to agree that a lot turns on the Court’s decision.

Every day that passes without an officially released ruling means more abortions are performed in Mississippi. The position of the state of Mississippi — agree with it or not — is that those abortions violate the right to life of the aborted fetuses, which is why it passed the ban that led to the case.

In the meantime, Mississippi’s abortion providers (whose position — agree with it or not — is that abortion is a human right which the Mississippi ban violates) are forced to operate in an environment of continuing uncertainty.

And since it’s a Supreme Court decision, every state government and every abortion provider in America has a similar stake in the outcome.

Why are we still waiting on the Court to publicly announce a decision it made months ago?

The Constitution assigns appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court “under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Here’s a suggestion: Congress should require the Court to publicly announce its decisions within one business day of voting.

Justificatory opinions can come later, but the Court owes  litigants — and the country — promptness in resolution of disputes.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

A year ago, the Washington Post reported that the Biden administration was poised to propose a ban on menthol cigarettes.

On April 28 the US Food and Drug Administration (supposedly an independent agency, but clearly operating per Joe Biden’s “suggestions”) finally announced its plan to move forward with the ban, which also includes cigars.

Now, as then, the main justification offered for the ban is that menthol cigarettes are disproportionately used by black smokers. 85% of black, versus only 29% of white, smokers choose menthol. QED, banning menthol will save black lives.

Let’s translate that justification into English: Black people are stupid. Too stupid to make their own decisions, and definitely too stupid to get around an FDA edict intended to take those decisions away from them.

Banning the sale of menthol cigarettes and cigars won’t stop Americans of any skin hue from smoking menthol cigarettes and cigars.

As a long-time menthol smoker, I’ve been “rolling my own” for years, using loose menthol tobacco, pre-made filter tubes, and an inexpensive machine. Yes, it’s a little more trouble, but it also saves me money. In fact, a carton (ten packs) of self-rolled cigarettes costs me just a little more than I’d pay for a single  pack of generic smokes.

Anyone who finds “roll your own” too inconvenient will see new products on their local store shelves the instant the ban goes into effect: Little crushable menthol capsules to stick in cigarette filters. Little spray bottles of menthol flavoring. Various products that transform “regular” cigarettes into the minty fresh product they prefer. These products already exist. At the moment they’re more a mail-order thing. The ban will change that.

And any smoker who finds THAT too inconvenient may just switch from menthol to “regular.”

The number who quit because of the ban will be minuscule.

About 9.3 million black Americans smoke. About 8 million of them smoke menthol.

Insulting the intelligence of America’s 30 million black voters, and going especially hard on a third of those voters, doesn’t seem like the smart play in an election year when the Democratic Party — which usually enjoys high turnout and  overwhelming support from those voters — is already in trouble.

Black smokers — black VOTERS — aren’t going to stop smoking menthol cigarettes. They’re just going to get righteously pissed at the people who make it harder for them to do so. And instead of voting Democrat, they may not bother to vote at all.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY