Toxic miscarriage of justice?

Roe v Wade (2021)

This movie is often described as the worst film made in 2021 so far. It must surely be a showcase for lousy storytelling, novice acting, and horrible script all put together. Sometimes, we wonder which direction the movie is going, pro-life or pro-choice? 

This offering is made by the people who feel the country was hoodwinked by Planned Parenthood in believing that the decision to give women the right over the reproductive function was what the government wanted. The Planned Parenthood's link to Margaret Singer and her work in eugenics and the 'Negro project' (and even Klu Klax Klan as the film suggest) meant that the foundation's intentions are subversive. It is said to have enticed medical practitioners and social workers with fake statistics and media to influence public sentiments. The prime advocate of abortion on demand was a gynaecologist Bernard Nathanson, who allegedly changed the whole pro-abortion issue into a money-making endeavour, later apparently repented and started championing an anti-abortion stance.

The film, however, gives a good background of the events surrounding the Supreme Court and the thinking of the 1973 landmark case. A Texan lady, Norma McCorvey, referred to as Jane Roe in her trials to maintain anonymity, was advised to put up an injunction, through her lawyers, to terminate her pregnancy. Norma had a troubled childhood and had had frequent run-ins with the law, even at the age of ten. Married at 16, only to discover that her partner was left with a baby and a drinking problem, her mother adopted her baby. A second partner came around, and a second baby ensued but was given up for adoption. She had her third unplanned pregnancy when she was 21 in 1969. She allegedly made a false claim that she was raped by a black man to demand a termination as it seems it was permissible by Texan law. She lost on paperwork, but the lawyers decided to get the case heard in the US Supreme Court with the backing of Planned Parenthood.

The times were changing. The social fabric and the place of women were evolving. From a position of playing second fiddle to men, the two world wars had shown that the women's role in society was equally as important as that of men. Hence, it became logical to demand equal rights, and they viewed reproduction as something that held them back from exploring their full potentials. The thinking was that 'one who controls reproduction controls her future. 

With this background and the change of the Supreme Court judges (after Nixon's appointment), the law was passed. 

Interestingly, both Dr Nathanson and Norma McCovey later became devout Catholics and fought for anti-abortion lobbyists.

Week 3: Embryonic stage

By no means, the question of abortion on demand has been resolved by the Roe v Wade case. (Wade is the name of the Public Prosecutor assigned to McCorvey's case). Legal minds still argue about Roe v Wade. It brings on the question of patient privacy and the place of the unborn child as a living entity demanding rights itself.

Scholars have been debating when life actually starts for centuries and still not come to a definite conclusion. For example, is it at Day 14 of conception when differentiation to trigeminal layers occurs? Or is it at the commencement of heartbeat or fetal movements?

All these academic stuff are well and fine to determine the path for the human race to follow, but in reality, in the ground, the public Joe has to handle the day-to-day dealing with more mouths to feed than they actually can. The funny thing about nature is that the people who can ill afford to have children are bestowed (or cursed) with generous gifts from the Stork. So poverty and multiparity are directly linked. How about rape as a justification to terminate a pregnancy? Are we going to lose the next Steve Jobs or Albert Einstein here?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.