The fate of Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance after a recent leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft suggested the justices intend to overturn it, which may do more for us in the long run.

According to an Associated Press article, the leak that occurred on May 2 was the first draft of majority opinions from the justices that indicated they might overturn the court’s 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade.

According to an excerpt of the syllabus from the SCOTUS document of that case, “A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife’s health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs’ Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does’ complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court’s grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hailford.”

Read the full document at bit.ly/3kZzWVB.

The court’s decision on Roe v. Wade declared that the Constitution protected a pregnant woman’s right to choose to have an abortion without government interference.

On Sept. 8, I wrote a column on the “Texas Heartbeat Act” that was passed on May 19 that put restrictions on abortions when a heartbeat was detected inside the womb. My thoughts were that there had to be a determination of when life began inside the womb during a woman’s pregnancy, which, if a heartbeat was detected, would ultimately protect that life under the 14th amendment.

You can read my article headlined “Exploring the Whatnots: Texas abortion law, what it means” by visiting our website and clicking on the Opinion tab.

Even though SCOTUS has not made a decision on overturning Roe v. Wade, the public is still in an uproar that this would end woman’s rights. Simply put, if it did happen, the decision would be left up to the states to see how to handle abortion as they see fit. I mean, that should have been the case in the beginning, but many fear that states will ban abortion. However, even before the 1973 decision, the excerpt I provided from Roe v. Wade showed that the Texas law made exceptions for abortion if there is “medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.”

Could the states completely rule out abortion? Yes — but with 50 states, it is unlikely. It’s even unlikely that abortion will be completely ruled out anyway. But I think this issue with these so-called “rights” is part of a larger problem that has caused a chain reaction of problems throughout the decades.

My question is, why do we no longer strongly support capital punishment? Possibly because the majority believes in reform. Why do we have laws against assisted suicide — or discourage suicide itself? If it is that individual’s body, then why should they not have the right to take their own life? This is definitely an interesting question that expands past our own self-interests.

It’s because we value who we are and have a moral obligation to survive. One thing that has led to the need for abortion is the dismantling of the family unit to where men and women have children — expected or unexpected — out of wedlock. And no, marriage is not a product of religion, as even some species practice monogamy in nature. But the benefits of a monogamous relationship allow a commitment to the family unit instead of single mothers marrying the government for funds. We have to have some standards for ourselves and accountability. Marriage is not benefiting only one person. It’s not a woman serving a man. You are serving each other. We have to do better than banning abortion outright or living in a sexually driven society. If we do that, then we will probably have fewer problems.

I come across so many single mothers and so many others who are divorced. It’s overwhelming to think that abortion is the answer. Maybe overturning Roe v. Wade will set us on the right path to take things more seriously.

News Editor Richard Holm can be reached at rholm@rrdailyherald.com or 252-410-7054.

News Editor Richard Holm can be reached at rholm@rrdailyherald.com or 252-410-7054.

Trending Videos