Not a lawyer, but took a few law classes; the professors taught the law classes as if they were teaching in law school. The constitutional law professor (Harvard grad, by the way) stated that there were aspects of the law that our Supreme Court deliberately stayed away from, because they were “slippery slope” issues. Welcome to the slippery slope, America.
The recent decision, which will probably be known as Dobb v. Jackson, turned to federalism. “Turned to federalism” means the issue has been turned back to the states to decide for themselves. The federal protection of abortion is no more. The SCOTUS decided that the federal protection of the right to get an abortion was not constitutional, that is to say, there is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees the right to get an abortion; Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Since even before the founding of the U.S., abortion has existed, for right or wrong; that is not an opinion, that is a fact. Abortion did not just appear when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, it existed even before there was a United States. The Roe v. Wade decision said that the right of an abortion was protected by privacy granted by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our present Supreme Court does not find that protection of privacy in the 14th Amendment, and has stated as such.
Fellow citizens, the slippery slope has started.
Texas is already considering a law that will prosecute women who cross a state line in order to get an abortion. When last I heard, crossing a state line, doing something legal and then returning to the state of your home was a federal issue, but the Republic of Texas does not see it that way, and other states are in line for adopting a similar position. When last I heard, any state is not entitled to prosecute a citizen for an act committed beyond their borders. The slippery slope is already facilitating states to enforce laws beyond their borders, a challenge to federalism if there ever was one. Because I gambled in Nevada does not give another state the right to prosecute me for the same. States cannot impose their laws upon other states, nor can they prosecute a citizen for doing what was legal in another state. It seems that certain states have determined that they have the power to do as they wish, even if the act was committed beyond their borders. Obviously, some state legislators do not understand federalism, nor, it seems, do they care about the rights of citizens.
Another slippery slope: If a state has concluded that life begins at conception, any birth control method that interferes with the implanting of a fertilized egg will become illegal, since the instant of conception is a life and any interference with that life after fertilization is a violation of the law. Next slope: It will soon follow that any pharmacological method of preventing pregnancy is also a violation of the law, because it will naturally follow that prevention of a life beginning is just another step in ending a potential life.
We are now engaged in what will become a civil war. Certain states will claim they have the responsibility to protect lives that, for all intent, purposes, and by their very legal definition, are not yet citizens. We cannot, nor have we ever, granted embryos citizenship; they do not come under the protection of the law. There are fertility laboratories that hold in their facilities fertilized eggs. This practice is soon to be examined in the light of fertilized eggs being protected citizens. Fellow citizens, welcome to the slippery slope.
Jeffrey Neil Jackson is an
Educator & Literary Mercenary