Will there be civil war over abortion? Charles Blow sees it coming.
In a dissent on Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to ‘veto’ or ‘nullif[y]’ any federal law with which they disagreed.”
I found the invocation of South Carolina’s Calhoun striking.
On the one hand, the Texas S.B.8 case had nothing to do with restoring slavery. On the other hand, Sotomayor’s invocation of Calhoun and slavery wasn’t mere happenstance. It brought the reaction from Blow that she no doubt expected and sought.
I see too many uneasy parallels between what was happening nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now. I see this country on the verge of another civil war, as the Calhounian impulse is reborn.
But first, a word from Gertrude.
There are enormous, obvious differences, of course. The civil war I see is not the kind that would leave hundreds of thousands of young men dead in combat. That is not to say that we aren’t seeing spats of violence but rather that this new war will be fought in courts, statehouses and ballot boxes, rather than in the fields.
Well, “fighting wars” in courts, statehouses and ballot boxes rather than in the fields isn’t actually war at all. Some might even call it democracy. But there’s anther “enormous, obvious” difference that goes unmentioned. The issue isn’t about race or slaves, but about abortion. While studiously avoiding that detail, he brings the multitudes into the morass.
And this war won’t be only about the subjugation of Black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy.
It will seek to push back against all the “others”: Black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, L.G.B.T.Q. people and, yes, women, particularly liberal ones.
Even I’m part of the “others,” as long as I don’t have an issue with the eradication of Israel, in which case I won’t be allowed to march. But I digress.
All of us should be very worried about what we see happening with these abortion cases — not just women who might need abortions or relatives and friends of women who might need them.
We should worry about whether or not we are at an inflection point for an age of regression.
On this, we’re in complete agreement. I’m damn worried that we’re at an inflection point for an age of regression. Indeed, I fear that we’re well down the road of a war of ideologies, one of which is so absurdly awful that it’s unworthy of recognition and the other so warped as to try to trick the unwary into conflating its reimagination of liberal virtues like civil liberties and equality into its war-mongering demagoging illiberalism.
I marched to end discrimination. I support the policy of abortion, much as I loathe abortion itself. I will fight to protect the integrity of American democracy from the lies of the crazies. But do not ask me to go to war for one side of illiberalism against the other.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Which civil war would this be? Since the 2016 election, I’ve lost count.
In the decades since Roe v Wade was decided, why wasn’t there an effort to codify it into a federal law with preemption?
It’s the same reason why congress doesn’t declare war anymore, or engage in meaningful criminal justice reform, or pass budgets, legalize marijuana among many other issues.. They abdicate the responsibility for making tough decisions to others. To remain in office is the primary goal…not service to their constituents (except the loudest ones) or the nation.
I hate politicians and love pot too, but are you really saying that Congress has the responsibility to legalize marijuana nationwide? Can you show me in the Constitution where Congress gets this responsibility? Same questions for abortion, even if that one is more unsettling than reefer. Be careful wishing for Congress to act, they just might.
Necessary and proper clause. Hey, you asked.
The words “responsibility” and “abdication” are objectionable. If Ahaz01 said “Congress can or should act” rather than “Congress must act”, then I wouldn’t have quibbled. Commenting on conlaw issues makes me nervous, but I think I have at least have some of the basics down. I’ll bow out now before I say something really stupid if I haven’t already.
I would presume that they got the responsibility to legalize from the same place they got the responsibility to outlaw.
At this point it would just be returning to where it should have been all along by letting the states decide.
Phil Ochs had some strong words about liberals.
To appreciate them, you would need to understand what the words meant in the ’60s and what he was talking about.
A war fought not with guns and bombs but with microaggressions and disagreeing opinions. The casualty count will dwarf that of all prior American wars.
If this guy snaps he may be one of the few to have written his manifesto as a New York Times op-ed.
Words are violence.
A hot war over abortion? As suggested, unlikely. But when left-leaning states start using their own versions of S.B.8 to squelch the personal assault weapons industry, I’ll dust off the popcorn machine. Gavin Newsom has plans.
You are nothing if not reliable, like the nice folks who scream “now do Trump” or “now do Biden” on twitter.
The NYT probably thinks acivil war would help sell newspapers.
Maybe, but not as well as Trump.
I anticipate that the anti-abortion forces will not consider a reversal of Roe as the final victory, but as a job half done. As various states pass laws protecting abortion rights, picketing and other obnoxious behaviors will increase, which will, in turn, trigger bad behavior by the ranks of the already angry pro-choice folks.
There will skirmishes.
In the past, some crazies in this conflict have resorted to violence. The supply of crazies remains high.
It’s almost as if there will never be peace until the Sharks and Jets lay down their switchblades and end the rumble.
I doubt the skirmishes will be as artistic as this:
I wish Sotomayor had the same point of view of the 2A during her questions of the NY firearm cases. States have been subverting the constitution for sometime. I just wish SCOTUS justices would take the same pearl clutching point of view on rights that aren’t the liberal sacred cow.
Her dissents have become substantially more strident over the past few years, but then, there haven’t been many 2A cases before the Court during that time. Perhaps her forceful rhetoric will be there when Bruen is decided.