This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

Peter McKnight: The legislature, and the legislature, should bear the wrath of pro-choice activists

Opinion: Law's approval of abortion rights is to occupy the legislature, the legislature that is currently telling American women what they can do. Brought to life the targeted professional life movement. Do it with your own body

Law enforcement officers prepare to break up an altercation in front of the Supreme Court building following the announcement to the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling on June 25, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Court's decision in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health case overturns the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case, removing a federal right to an abortion.
Law enforcement officers June 2022 The front of the Supreme Court building following the announcement of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling in Washington, DC on the 25th. A court ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case overturned the groundbreaking 50-year-old Roe v. Wade case and removed federal rights to abortion.Photo courtesy of Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Canada-U angry protests south and north .. S. Borders reveal one thing. Both Canadians and Americans expect too much from the court and too much from the elected representatives.

The protests were triggered by a US Supreme Court ruling last weekDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Agency, ending the reproductive freedom women enjoyed. I let you. Half a century since the Roe v. Wade incident.

The anger at the court is understandable given the rare revocation of constitutional rights and the overlapping nature of the recent testimony of the appointed person at the House Judiciary Committee. Each confirmed a solemn commitment to precedent, but later revealed that Roe's precedent was not as sacred to them as it led everyone to believe.

However, as some critics argue, the court did not tell women what they could and could not do with their bodies. The court does not have that authority. All they can do is tell the legislator what they can and cannot do: what the Constitution allows and prohibits.

Therefore, Dobbs' decision told the state legislature that it could pass a law restricting the control of women's bodies, but those legislatures were needed to do so. rice field. As a result, the legislature, and the legislature, should bear the wrath of the selected activists, so the anger at the court seems a bit misguided.

In fact, it was the Roe v. Wade case that raised expectations for many people in court and at the same time reduced expectations for elected representatives. Prior to Roe, a powerful pro-choice movement focused attention not only on courts but also on the legislature, but the movement almost disappeared after the decision was announced.

In many states, Democrats didn't even challenge the elections. He then ran Republicans for state positions. Obviously, you don't have to fight the war you've already won.

On the other hand, the thorough approval of Rho's right to abortion is aimed at understanding what they are telling the Legislature, which is now American women. Activated the combined professional life movement. You can do it with their body.

In a 1993 speech at NYU School of Law, it was the late U.S. Supreme Court that pointed out this point months before her confirmation hearing. It is none other than Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Top coat seat.

Gimberg has taken an unprecedented step in supporting the right to abortion at her hearing, but her criticism of the Roe v. Wade case is uncertain about where she stands. Created certainty.

Nonetheless, in her speech at the University of Chicago 20 years later, Roe "seems to have stopped the momentum of change," he said. It will be. " She wanted to secure the right to abortion in a more gradual manner in the process, including the legislature and courts.

Indeed, if pro-choice activists continued to court the legislature, Dobbs' decision could have had a very different impact. In Dobbs, the court dismissed Law's conclusion that the US Constitution contains a myriad of rights to privacy. Therefore, the state has decided that it can enact a law prohibiting abortion.

Many predominantly Republican states have already implemented bans. But in the bright red Montana, abortion is still legal. In particular, the State Constitution explicitly protects the right to privacy. That right is currently under attack, but the Montana proceedings show that the rights secured through the Legislature can withstand the strong decisions of the Supreme Court.

It should be a lesson not only for Americans but also for Canadians. Courts play an important role in ensuring that the law does not violate the Constitution, which, like all other laws, is a legislative act.

If we really care about our rights, it's never enough to go to court. Many people have lost confidence in politicians and political processes, but courts cannot always demand that they rush to our rescue, as pro-choice Americans are now learning difficult ways. ..

However, you can request it from the winning representative. And we should.

Vancouver Sun Headline News logo

Sign up to receive daily headline news from Vancouver Sun, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. By clicking the

By sign-up button, you agree to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email. Postmedia Network Inc. | 365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4 | 416-383-2300