The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will soon have the opportunity to reverse the precedent set by Roe v. Wade — but will they take that step? For the sake of millions of unborn children, the Washington Examiner‘s Thomas Glessner hopes so.
In a column published Saturday, Glessner argued that the standard set by the high court in Roe and later Planned Parenthood v. Casey that pregnancies in the U.S. can be terminated as long as the fetus has not reached the point of viability is misguided and arbitrary.
Worse still, the policy has resulted in “the tragic deaths of more than 63 million unborn children” since Roe was decided in 1973, said Glessner, who serves as president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.
A golden opportunity
Finally, the high court now has the chance to overturn its prior decisions and rectify past mistakes — and with a 6–3 majority on the bench, it’s looking more and more like the possibility may soon be reality. In an upcoming case, the SCOTUS will review a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks.
The law is based on research that suggests unborn babies can feel pain as early as 12 weeks into the gestation cycle.
If the Supreme Court upholds the law, it would open the door to abortion bans nationwide that have largely been struck down in the past.
The situation puts justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, including Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, in the spotlight. During each of their confirmation hearings, Democrats fretted over how these justices would rule on cases challenging Roe and other established precendents, and now, the Dems will get to see how they’ll decide firsthand.
Time for change
For his part, Glessner argues that overturning the precedents set decades ago is a move that’s long overdue.
“The viability of a pregnancy is medically defined as the point in time an unborn child may live independently outside of his or her mother’s womb — albeit with artificial means. The time when a pregnancy becomes viable is a judgment subject to the current ability of medical technology to sustain life,” the Washington Examiner columnist explained.
“Viability is not a measurement of the humanity of an individual. Rather, it is a measurement of the state of medical technology,” he noted. “Why should such a legal standard continue?”
With the latest case out of Mississippi, the nation is watching. The only question is: Will the Supreme Court’s justices have the guts to do what’s right?
“We cannot change the past tragedies of our nation, which include the needless deaths of millions of unborn children,” Glessner wrote for the Examiner. “However, we can look to the future and protect the millions yet to be born. This is what the current cultural debate on abortion is all about.”