“It is a right of women to control their own destinies and make decisions without the Big Brother of the State telling them what they can and cannot do”Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote.
Two years after his death, the same supreme judges who, by annulling the restrictions on carrying arms in public places, granted a right that will cost many lives, days later, arguing “defend life”They took away from women the right to decide about their bodies.
Bader Ginsburg, the jurist who expanded the rights of women, homosexuals, racial minorities and other social groups that suffered injustice, was a brilliant exponent of the liberal aspects of legal thought in the Supreme Court of the United States, where progressivism and conservatism must be balanced.
Donald Trump upset that balance by appointing evangelical fundamentalist Amy Coney Barrett to the seat left vacant by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, beginning the destruction of the law that legalized the termination of pregnancy.
The decompensation of the highest court had begun with the appointment of Samuel Alito (nominated by George W Bush in 2006) in the place left vacant by the moderate Anthony Kennedy (proposed by Donald Reagan).
In this way, the seat from which Kennedy had supported the legality of abortion and homosexual rights, was left in the hands of an admirer and emulator of the conservative judge Antonin Scalia.
The imbalance was completed with Coney Barrett, also appointed in the last year of Trump’s term, that is, in violation of the healthy tradition by which, at that point in a term, the appointment of a member of the Court must be left to the government. later.
That court, co-opted by recalcitrant conservatism, is the one that issued the rulings that exposed the deepest crack that divides Americans. Like Janus, the deity of Roman mythology whose effigy has two opposite faces, one face of the United States is liberal, tolerant, secular and open to diversity, while the opposite face is conservative, moralistic, closed and religious, with a strong tendency to intolerance.
The liberal face defends laws that do not impose anything on the other that it considers contrary to its convictions and beliefs. But the clinging face of religious conservatism imposes laws that override the rights of those who think and feel differently. The clearest and most used example in the debates is that legal abortion does not oblige any woman to interrupt a pregnancy if she does not want to do so, while the illegality of abortion does imply an imposition.
If terminating pregnancy is legal, all women can decide on their bodies, while if it is not, millions of women lose that sovereignty.
In this second case, the State acts as “that Big Brother who says what they can and cannot do” described by the lucid supreme judge that Bill Clinton had appointed.
In 1973, with the Roe v. Wade ruling, the United States became an inspiring model of liberal legislation. The young Norma McCorvey, with the pseudonym of Jane Roe, managed to get the Supreme Court to rule against the position of the Texas attorney, Henry Wade, ruling that under the fourteenth amendment, there is a “right to privacy” to the Constitution that allows the woman to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
That ruling was the product of a Supreme Court balanced between conservatives, progressives and moderates like Anthony Kennedy who balance the arm wrestling between the opposing sides. While the ruling that has just annulled the woman’s right to decide on her pregnancy, is the product of the unbalanced Court that Trump left.
The supreme judges who reversed course did so with the motto of anti-abortionists around the world: “defend life.”
Those in favor of taking away from women the decision about their bodies are justified in the right to life of people, considering that the character of a person, like life, bursts in at the very moment of conception. That there is a person since the sperm fertilizes the ovum is a religious conviction.
What exists objectively are people in schools, colleges, shopping malls, or wherever a psychopath shoots at random into a crowd. However, the lives of those people who are shot down by the bullets of individuals who all of a sudden enter the exterminating trail, had less value for the Supreme Court than the right to buy and carry assault rifles and other weapons used to massacre .
The same magistrates of the Court that detract from the role of weapons in the exterminations that occur regularly, putting the entire cause of the massacres in the mental or emotional imbalance of the exterminator, they wield the argument of defending the person’s life when it comes to pregnancy.
It is obvious that there is violence and unbalanced people in all the countries of the world and that, therefore, if that type of violence that is the recurring massacres for no reason occurs with such regularity in the United States, it is because there the unbalanced can easily access to weapons of war.
The possibility of acquiring assault rifles explains why in North American society something happens that does not happen, in similar magnitudes, in any other society in the world. So, obviously, it is the assault rifles and other weapons with the possibility of firing bursts or triggering a large number of bullets in a few seconds, which, with their deadly sensuality, awaken the sleeping psychopath that many carry within and put them in an exterminating trance.
In this way, if access to assault rifles and other weapons of war were prohibited, which, due to their ability to fire a large number of projectiles in a few seconds, are the ones that cause massacres, this type of tragedy would cease to occur or would occur with much less frequently. Therefore, a ban on such weapons would save many lives.
But those lives interrupted for no reason are worth less, in the consideration of the conservative supreme judges, than the lives produced in the first months of gestation. And also, apparently, they are worth less than the millionaire profits that arms manufacturers obtain in the only country in the world where there are more weapons than inhabitants.