On a U.S. Supreme Court hearing, Justice Sotomayor demands Abortion must be put “aside from religion.”
Newsroom – (December 12, 2021, 6:30 PM, Gaudium Press) Early this month,a U.S Supreme Court hearing investigated the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The arguments made by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in response to Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, who presented his case on behalf of the petitioners, made the hearing worth commenting.
The Supreme Court Hearing
Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two landmark decisions in Supreme Court which increased access to abortion by striking down certain restrictions, deeming them unconstitutional, were frequently referenced in court. Prior to this Supreme Court hearing, the lower court had deemed Mississippi law on abortion unconstitutional as well, on the basis that it violates the ruling of Planned Parent v. Casey by banning the procurement of abortions before viability. Stewart’s argument is to overrule Roe and Casey and uphold Mississippi law. He claimed that “Roe and Casey have failed, but the people, if given the chance, will succeed.” He also criticized the line of viability drawn by Roe and Casey, and how this viability line is unfounded and unreasonable: “Roe and Casey’s core holding, according to those courts, is that the people can protect an unborn girl’s life when she just barely can survive outside the womb but not any earlier when she needs a little more help. That is the world under Roe and Casey.”
“Putting it aside from religion”
Justice Sotomayor has been the focus of recent pro-life discussion, due to her tactic in contesting the arguments made by Stewart. Firstly, she emphasizes the fact that there are new justices in the Supreme Court, and how this has been said to have influenced the current re-investigation of abortion laws: “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” It is evident that from the beginning of the Supreme Court hearing, there is an aversion to investigating abortion laws, due to fear of public perception. It is deeply concerning that the discussion of issues central to human life and human existence are avoided, merely on the basis that repealing or revising law may appear political in nature. Secondly, and most importantly, Sotomayor attempts to discredit Stewart’s criticism of the viability line by suggesting a strictly religious nature to his pro-life views and arguments: “How is your interest anything but a religious view? when do you suggest we begin that [ the fetus’] life?” When Stewart attempts to respond to the questions fired at him, Sotomayor dictates the premise of his answer, which, by her terms, must be put “aside from religion.”
A Human Rights Issue
Make no mistake, the issue of human existence and the point at which human life begins is a human rights issue, and it is not confined to religion. This is why the pro-life movement comprises a diverse array of people of different faiths and religions, including atheists, who are all united by the belief that human life needs to be protected, from its origin, from conception. Certainly, religious views can be used to defend pro-life views, however, Stewart’s claims are not contingent on religion, and to use this argument against him demonstrates the character of Sotomayor and others, who seek to prevent intellectual discussion on critical topics central to human existence, either due to their inability to do so, or their fear of being disproved, by drawing on unfounded claims.
The Pro-life View is for Everyone
The pro-life view is for everyone – regardless of faith, background, and heritage – because it concerns each of us, and protects each of us, especially our vulnerable brothers and sisters in the womb. Let us continue to engage in deep and thoughtful discussion on the origin of human life, and uphold our right to defend our pro-life convictions, even when, as was seen in the Supreme Court hearing, superficial and unsubstantiated barriers are built in efforts to avert open and rational discussion.
by Sarah Gangl With files from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/19-1392_gfbi.pdf, “Block on Mississippi’s fetal-heartbeat abortion bill is upheld” CNN, “Judge notes ‘sad irony’ of men deciding abortion rights as he strikes Mississippi’s abortion law”. CNN.
