Unhinged & Irrational Hysteria: The Looming Battle Over Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation & Roe v. Wade.

Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation process for the United States Supreme Court will be the most contentious political event of this century. The political right will sell its base the line that Barrett’s nomination will represent the nail in abortion’s coffin. The political left will sell its base the line that women will lose their most important right: the right to have an abortion. The result? Mutual unhinged and irrational hysteria by ill-informed political actors and their supporters.

Here’s a piece of reality. Even if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and it overrules Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its decision will not spell the end of abortion in the United States.

Fundamental to both Roe and Casey‘s holdings is the principle that a state has a compelling interest in protecting life. Relying on its privacy precedents, the Supreme Court essentially established that an individual – male or female – has a non-absolute federal constitutional right to make medical decisions concerning his or her own body. To reconcile the state’s interest and the individual’s right, the Supreme Court made two attempts to establish some sort of constitutional criteria for when life can properly be said to begin, overruling its first attempt (Roe) in Casey.

The Supreme Court’s endeavor to determine when life can properly be said to begin is really an endeavor for all of us, not nine people clad with black robes. In other words, there is no constitutional criteria for when life begins.

The American people, however, don’t like dealing in non-absolutes. Their political parties have crafted an ill-informed narrative that the overruling of Roe and Casey would end abortion for good in the United States. Indeed, there are some conservative scholars who argue quite coherently for such an outcome as a matter of constitutional law. I, however, don’t see the overwhelming majority of the American legal community including Amy Coney Barrett adopting such a view, and I myself remain unpersuaded that such an absolute result would be consistent with the federal constitution. I am even more sure that such a view could not find five votes on the United States Supreme Court even if Barrett is confirmed.

Overruling Roe and Casey really restarts the endeavor of determining, as a society in the state legislative or state constitutional processes, where life can properly said to begin. Some states such as Alabama have already made that determination in anticipation of the hoped-for day when the Supreme Court overrules Roe and Casey. Most states have not made that hopeful determination. Consequently, our society would have to resolve that question with painful labor through the state legislative or constitutional processes, and, until that question is resolved by the states, abortion would likely remain legal as state executive branches are unlikely to spend the massive resources necessary to initiate and complete infanticide prosecutions under existing criminal procedures.

Rational assessments of reality, however, are politically inconvenient because they do not stir the intense passions necessary to compel people to part with their money and speak up on political issues. Political convenience requires all-or-nothing absolutes. Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation process will be framed in all-or-nothing absolutes by both political sides with the primary issue being abortion. Unhinged and irrational hysteria will dominate. She’ll likely be confirmed, and the battle lines will reform on the next all-or-nothing absolute.

In conclusion, I am a Christian. I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder. I don’t believe in any exceptions to that principle. At the same time as Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out, religion and logic are not mutually exclusive. I am a thinker and a constitutional scholar. I have absolutely no delusions of finding a constitutional right to life for the unborn in the Fourteenth Amendment just as I think it is misguided to find that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections for liberty guarantee a right to an abortion.

Where life begins is truly a legislative issue, and no amount of irrational or misguided hysteria will change that. If the future Justice Barrett and her colleagues vote to overrule Roe and Casey, their decision won’t end anything. It will simply return the issue to the states and, ultimately, the legislative process where it rightfully belongs.

Cameron L. Atkinson

Cameron Atkinson is a Christian, a published constitutional scholar, a trial and appellate lawyer, and a general hell-raiser. He has received national recognition for his victories in civil rights cases, especially in First Amendment cases. Attorney Atkinson stands out for his written advocacy, and he has taken the lead role in briefing cases to the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Connecticut Appellate Court, and multiple New York appellate courts. Attorney Atkinson has successfully represented clients facing criminal charges, including successfully arguing for the reversal of a sexual assault conviction before the Connecticut Supreme Court. He will accept requests for public speaking engagements on a case-by-case basis.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Yasseem Neirzcatcher says:

    I think what is really interesting to see about ACB’s confirmation is how that we will see how far a states right to protect life will be. For instance certain women have a very high chance of miscarriage, say, above 50%. A state that is interested in protecting the lives of children may pass laws mandating sterilization for women with such miscarriage rates (as allowing them to conceive would be hugely dangerous), and I’d love to see how the court rules on it. The potential number of lives lost by women recklessly conceiving despite the likelihood of their child dying is irreconcilable.

    • If we love sticking blindly to precedent, the Court already has upheld forced sterilization related to a public health goal in Buck v. Bell in 1927, relying on the same case law that supports the current pandemic restrictions. Buck v. Bell has never been formally overruled by the Supreme Court although it has been universally excoriated.

      That being said, I don’t see any state taking the heavy-handed approach of forcing sterilization. I’d see states saying though that natural miscarriages as opposed to intentionally induced miscarriages are a natural and unfortunate incident of life. I’d also see their health departments pushing pre-conception contraceptive solutions.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: