Dred Scott and Abortion
March 6, 2007 by Laura | Trackback URI
The prevailing view these days - other than that held by pro-lifers - seems to be that what a court rules, especially the Supreme Court, rises almost to the level of Gospel. But it’s important to remember that courts are populated by the same flawed, fallible people who populate the rest of the planet. Today in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled on the Dred Scott case. If you don’t remember Dred Scott from your American History class, his story is here. Short version: “In what is perhaps the most infamous case in its history, the court decided that all people of African ancestry — slaves as well as those who were free — could never become citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court.” [Update: LaShawn Barber has an excellent post on Dred Scott today.]
The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the “majority opinion” for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.
Here’s Newspaper Archive’s take on it:
By a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, in which Scott, a slave who resided in Missouri, was suing for his freedom. The Court’s decision stated that slaves could not be full United States citizens and any attempt to limit slavery was a violation of slave owner’s rights. On March 28, 1857, the Janesville Morning Gazette printed Chief Justice Taney’s opinion. “The African race who came to this country, whether free or slave, were not intended to be included in the Constitution for the enjoyment of any personal rights or benefits,” read the opinion. “Hence, the court is of opinion, from the facts stated in the plea of abatement, that Dred Scott is not a citizen of Missouri, and is not, therefore, entitled to sue in the United States courts.” The Court’s decision was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
The effect of the decision was far-reaching. It was a big factor in Abraham Lincoln’s nomination and election.
As for Scott, he did at least die a free man. The sons of his original owner, Peter Blow, were childhood friends of Scott and supported Scott throughout his decade-long legal battle. After the Supreme Court’s decision, they purchased Scott and his wife and set them free. Scott enjoyed nine months of freedom before his death.
Sooner or later, SCOTUS will revisit the issue of abortion. Even the principals in the two major abortion rulings so far, Roe and Doe, are now on the pro-life side. There will be a response much like that from slave owners during the decade that the Dred Scott case made its way through the court system, especially after the 1850 retrial in a lower court that ruled Scott and his family free. Well-meaning people on both sides of the fence are going to make impassioned arguments about whose rights must prevail in a free society - that of the mother, or the baby. Arguments that it is a fetus, not a baby, remind me of the old arguments that slaves were not human. Science is increasingly proving that the fetus is a baby, a human being, at even the earliest stages of development - a heartbeat is detected at 18 days, long before most women know they are pregnant, and recently one baby was delivered at just under 22 weeks and is doing fine. That’s five and a half months, well within the range of legal abortions in all but one state.
Why are women having abortions?
Click to view larger image.
Data Source
Only 7% of abortions have anything to do with the health of either the mother or the baby, and less than 1% of pregnancies terminated by abortion are the result of a rape. Look at the chart - it’s clear that the vast majority of abortions are completely voluntary (not a life or health issue) and due to social problems that could easily be solved if we decided that these are real children and that there is no social stigma to giving a child up for adoption.
I’m not averse to having the law changed. As Dred Scott shows, SCOTUS sometimes makes bad decisions that need to be revisited. But the problem is not the law, and we need to stop focusing on getting the right legislation passed or the right case in front of the right court. The problem is our hearts, and our priorities. And there is no need to wait to change those. If we want to stop abortion, we need to help the women who are seeking them.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Mark My Words, DragonLady’s World, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, stikNstein… has no mercy, walls of the city, Overtaken by Events, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Well, Supreme Court rulings can be overturned; I agree.
However, with 18,000 children dying form hunger every day; I think it’s wise to give potential mothers the choice to not bring another thinking, feeling person into this world.
Scott, you’re missing the point. How about if we feed those children instead of just killing others? That’s why I’m a Compassion sponsor and help support an orphanage in Mexico. And since what you’re talking about is not a problem in the US, (which is clearly what I was talking about, since Dred Scott and the Roe and Doe cases do not apply to other countries) what if we encourage people in those countries to get rid of the corruption and dictatorships that so often lead to famine?
I’d also like to note that only 23% of women in the US report that “Can’t afford a baby now” is the reason they get an abortion.
I just checked out your website, and I can’t tell you how strongly I disagree with your characterization that the pro-life position “essentially turn[s] pregnant women into slaves.”
On the other hand, I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the horror of abortion, and that fetuses of a certain age feel pain as they are being aborted. I do generally agree with you that legislation alone will not solve the problem (hence this post) and that persuasion is the best way to stop abortion.
Abortion numbers are far too high…
Over 3,500 per day / Over 1.3 million per year in America alone.
50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.
A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.
And 2% had medical reasons.
That means a staggering 98% of unwanted pregnancies may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.
There are an estimated 34 million women in need of contraceptive services in America — those who are not sterilized, pregnant or trying to conceive.
34 million…if the pill is 99% effective that means 1% of 34mill = 340,000 + 26,000 for the 2% = 366,000…………….
366,000 abortions per year..Doesn’t that sound better than 1.3 million…
And it could be even less, some of the implants are 99.9% effective….
0.1% of 34mill = 34,000 + 26,000 for the 2% = 60,000………WOW……..
1.3 million per year or 60,000 per year….
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT (in arm)
THAT IS SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?
Implanon is new to the US but has been widely used in Aus for about five years.
The only bad report iv’e heard is if your a smoker you can’t use them due to increased risk of cardiovascular conditions.
Good incentive to give the cigs a miss…………
(not hard to work out which one I’d rather give up.)
Any way my daughter has one, and no problems, no pills to remember,and she is protected from unwanted pregnancies for three years.
(in fact our GP told my daughter they were 100% effective but they’ve left a 0.1% margin for error in case)
But wait, how do we get them all to use birth control, many I’ve encountered spit chips at the mere mention of the idea.
I know their are a number of people who can’t use birth control for one reason or another.
But is that true for all types of birth control,
there are many different types to choose from,
surely one to suite most every-one.
I would suggest that the number of people that can’t use any of them at all would be very small
but many use this as their reason.
If only people would choose to use birth control,
They wouldn’t have to make another choice……..
http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/hormonal_birth_control.htm
Cash payments for using birth control…………..
http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/02/project-preventionthe-road-as-opposed.html
Bruce, what is the source of your stats? They are in direct conflict with mine - see link above. Please give the cite - I’m interested in seeing what study you’re referencing.
Laura…….could you be a bit more specific…..can’t find yours.
Under the thumbnail graphic is “Data Source” which links to the study where I got these stats.
Come to think of it, your stats are not in conflict with mine - I’m talking about the cause of the abortion while you’re talking about the cause of the pregnancy - but I’m still interested in seeing what study are you referencing.
he died a good man