Both sides speak out on abortion controversy
May 4—A draft opinion circulated among Supreme Court justices was leaked Monday and published by Politico. The draft suggests that earlier this year a majority of the justices had thrown support behind overturning the 1973 case Roe v. Wade. If the draft opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito stands, it would be a momentous change of course for the court.
Whether the Supreme Court will support Roe v. Wade, which has been in effect for nearly 50 years — that women have a constitutional right to choose an abortion — isn't likely given the conservative makeup of the court. Instead, pro-choice and pro-life advocates are expecting the court to at least affirm Mississippi's contested 15-week, pre-viability ban on abortion. Or, as the leaked opinion suggests, the justices could overturn Roe v. Wade altogether and allow states to enact more stringent regulations or bans.
An article published Tuesday afternoon in the Federalist, said, "It was leaked this week for one reason: to incite violence and bully justices into changing their votes."
Local college student Kam Bort said abortion laws have caused great controversy between political parties.
"It's not just about the woman carrying the child," she said. "A child inside of the womb has no say or control over what happens to it, which makes it wrong."
The Politico article said, "The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision — Planned Parenhood v. Casey — that largely maintained the right."
Draft opinions are not final and Justices can change their minds throughout the process.
Crystal Lattimer, president of Ashtabula County Friends for Life, said she believes the premature release of the opinion was designed to enflame Democrats so they will go to the polls.
"i don't believe any of the justices did it," she said. "I was very heartened to read that opinion and I hope and pray that it stands as it was leaked."
Ashtabula resident Tara Hawkins said it does not matter whether the Supreme Court leak was intentional.
"We know politicians will use human rights as ammunition to score political points wherever possible, our highest court now no exception, where Justice Sam Alito is showing his hand at legislating from the bench if this draft is real," she said.
The state of Ohio is set to severely restrict abortion care depending on the Supreme Court ruling expected to come down in June.
State law now allows abortion of a fetus up to 20 weeks after fertilization, and beyond that when the mother is at risk of harm or death.
That may change depending on the outcome of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.
"As a woman, I am continually appalled that the government feels it necessary to dictate how any woman cares for her body," said Marie Lane, an attorney in Ashtabula.
"Women have rights, whether or not any other person agrees with their decisions. As a lawyer, I am disgusted by the leak of the draft opinion. The leak of any pending decision brings disgrace upon the Supreme Court, whether I agree with it or not."
Ashtabula resident Ann Rapose said she read the leaked opinion and it made her sad.
"I remember I was a teenager before it was legal and I remember people who wanted to get one and the hard time they had," she said. "I think it should be part of a health care plan. It should be between a woman, her family and her doctor, and not something the government should be involved in."
Bort cited, "The Crimes Against The Unborn Child Act," which states, "On June 29th, 1997, near Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Jeffery R. Booth ran a stop sign while drunk and wrecked into a minivan driven by Nancy Boehm who was at the time eight months pregnant. Physicians were unable to save the unborn child named Jason, who died of head and abdominal injuries. In what can be considered as a landmark case in Pennsylvania, Booth was charged with vehicular homicide for the death of a fetus."
To that, Bort said, "So it's legal to intentionally have an abortion, but a crime to unintentionally kill an unborn person."
In a prepared statement, U.S. Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said he consistently supports pro-life.
"The leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion is an egregious breach of trust and a deliberate attempt to undermine the faith we place in our nation's most sacred institutions," he said. "This further underscores the need for our country to put our political differences aside and work to restore this faith and trust in our institutions. I am encouraged that Chief Justice Roberts has ordered an investigation and hope the court can identify the individuals responsible and hold them accountable."
Lattimer echoed Portman's statement, noting a leak from the nation's highest court is extremely rare.
Portman said he believes Roe was wrongly decided and the elected representatives in the states, not the Supreme Court, should have jurisdiction over this issue.
Hawkins countered that abortion is not an easy choice for some, but it is their choice to make.
"We have no business telling a person what they can and cannot do with their bodies," she said. "Having the federal government support and codify Roe v. Wade is crucial to our ability to choose to have an abortion, and care for the families we want and/or already have. Leaving it up to the states will trigger dozens of laws across the U.S. that wholly criminalize abortion — some resulting in jail time for the person, providers, and anyone helping them access their healthcare."
