While abortion is the central issue as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the fate of the 1972 landmark decision, Roe vs. Wade, some, including Austin Deaver and Jaye Rogers, are concerned about the unintended consequences.
“It’s insane that people with extreme conservative views aren’t even going to be around to see the effects,” Deaver said.
For instance, trampling on precedent can mean that marriage rights could be rolled back for LGBTQ+ and interracial couples, said Deaver, who in 2014 established the first anti-bullying group and first LGBTQ+ group at Anderson High School.
“I can’t believe that human beings wake up and have the audacity to decide who has human rights,” he said. “I can’t imagine living in a world where human rights are debatable at all.”
Jaye Rogers, chair of Anderson University’s Department of History and Political Science, who often teaches in the area of women’s studies, said the draft she read raises more questions than it answers. A reversal of Roe vs. Wade could unintentionally have many adverse effects for women, not only on bodily autonomy, but freedom of speech and even the right to vote.
For instance, we could find ourselves going back to the days of the Comstock Act when it was illegal to even talk about birth control. The Comstock Act, which was intended to stop obscenity, was in place from the 1870s until about the 1940s.
Among other concerns, Rogers said, is that Roe vs. Wade affected several laws that never officially were taken off the books because of what lawmakers often considered an unreasonable amount of time and effort that would be involved. Those laws, as silly as some may seem today, could go back into effect immediately upon reversal.
“Certainly, there is enough concern about the draft that these things might go back in motion again,” she said. “It could be that states do not want to turn back the law and outlaw birth control, but these laws can still be on the books and unintentionally go back into effect.”
An additional concern, Rogers said, is that the concept of a constitutional right to privacy was developed as a justification for abortion rights. That same concept, which also affects men’s rights, since 1972 also has been used for other legal applications.
Though the draft authored by Justice Samuel Alito specifically said its provisions should be applied to the issue of abortion only, Rogers said, that likely can’t be controlled.
“He can’t guarantee future courts will honor that,” she said. “He can’t define where this is likely to go, especially if he is no longer on the court.”
When asked specifically about concerns related to the right to privacy, Indiana Sen. Mike Gaskill, R-Pendleton, said rights as defined by law are intended to protect people only up until the point where they infringe on someone else’s rights. The status of the concept of right to privacy is better left to lawyers, he added.
“The whole idea of government is to protect the defenseless,” he said. “When the rights of one person infringe on the rights of another person who has no recourse, that is where you have to draw the line.
“We have a duty to protect children and to teach them to love their fellow human beings,” Gaskill added. “Every one of us is a child of God and deserves to be treated as such.”
Follow Rebecca R. Bibbs on Twitter at @RebeccaB_THB, or call 765-640-4883.