'My body, my choice' has the potential to become a well traveled chant. In terms of my awareness and memory, the chant was first used by women protesting for abortion rights. It was also used by anti-vaxxer, religiously conservative Christians during the current Covid-19 pandemic. The irony of their use of the phrase is that they are borrowing it from the ideological enemies in the abortion debate.
The phrase could also be used by the LGBT community both now and in the past. For there use to be laws that criminalized certain sexual practices used by homosexuals even though heterosexual couples often performed the same acts. And, according to the leaked legal opinion, with the logic employed by the Supreme Court on the Mississippi abortion case, states, especially states governed by religiously conservative Christians, could reinstitute those same laws that had been ruled unconstitutional. And those laws could also be applied to the transgendered as well. Time will tell if that chant will be used by the LGBT community.
We should note here that if we mix the anti-vax sentiment from religiously conservative American Christians with the pro-choice chant, that chant has a chance to transition when it is used by anti-abortion advocates in response to pro-choice advocates. The new chant could become, 'My body my choice, Your body my choice.'
We should note here that none of our freedoms are absolute. We have the right to free speech but we can't just yell 'fire' in a crowded area when we know that there is no fire. The right to bear arms has limits as the Supreme Court noted in the District of Columbia v. Heller opinion. We have freedom of religion until our religious practices harm or violate the rights of others. And so the question becomes what should be the constraints that the law should put on the 'My body my choice' way of thought. For one doesn't have to be a woman who is or might become pregnant to understand that we have the right to make certain choices our own bodies.
And so 'My body my choice' has limits. Those limits include when our bodies either physically threatens others or their rights. Thus the anti-vaxxer chant was totally inappropriate as well as naive. It was inappropriate because the mask and vaccination requirements were put into place to protect the health of others. As it stands, the Covid pandemic has killed over 900,000 Americans and that includes hundreds of healthcare workers. It's not that the vaccinations provided 100% protection against the virus. It is that the vaccinations both curbed both the spread and the threat posed by the disease. And the masks provided a measure of protection for the general public provided that they were employed by a significant percentage of the people. And that is why the anti-vaxxer use of the chant was naive.
So when it comes to anti-vaxxers, the 'My body my choice' could be answered with the following: 'Your body our choice.' The reason why it could become our choice is simple. One's behavior during the pandemic either reduces or increases the health risks of others. In addition, there are several vaccination mandates that have already been in place well before not just Covid 19, but, for some who were in the Trump Administration, Covid 1.
The next issue here is whether women who considering undergoing an elective abortion can legitimately claim 'My body my choice.' Here some context is needed. The Sexual Revolution was actually in response to 2nd class citizenship that women were forced to endure because of patriarchy. The desire to have getting an abortion a right was seen as part of the liberation of women from that 2nd class citizenship. And because of that, there is a conflict of interest for women who are seeking equality with men, things have improved but it is still a quest, in considering the human status of the unborn. It is a conflict of interest because of the desire to reverse and prevent past injustices; it is not due to their gender per se. For if an unborn is a human life, then the insistence on legalizing elective abortions has women chanting 'Your body my choice' to the unborn.
And if the unborn are human lives, then the obtaining of an elective abortion is the killing of another human for the sake of one's rights over their own body. At that point, society and the state are justified in chanting 'Your body our choice' in order to protect the lives of the unborn.
Unfortunately, the human status of the unborn was apparently not a consideration employed by recently leaked Supreme Court opinion on Roe v. Wade. Rather, the logic employed by Alito targets the right to privacy because it is not explicitly mentioned in The Constitution, neither is the right to an abortion. That with some other considerations means, according to Alito and company, that the states have the right to determine their abortion laws. Included in that opinion was the fact that most of the states had laws outlawing abortion back when the 14 Amendment, an amendment referred to in claiming the right to privacy, was written.
Now I am not a lawyer have neither read nor conveyed enough of the leaked opinion. But if there is no right to privacy being respected, if the opinion is based on the beliefs of the nation back when the Christian religion had a dominant influence on the nation, and there is no explicit mention of the right to an abortion, then other rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court based on the right to privacy are at risk if there is no significant difference between the leaked opinion and the final ruling. What is tragic is that the opinion and anticipated ruling has nothing to do with the human status and thus the rights of the unborn--here the unborn is call potential life at certain stages. Rather, women are not recognized as having the right to privacy in terms of reproduction. And so while my fellow pro-lifers are cheering the results, the grounds for the ruling are inadequate for the pro-life cause and creates a potential for those governing a state to override previous rights based on the right of privacy according to their religious views. The leaked opinion and anticipated ruling sets the stage for states to say to the LGBT community, 'Your body our choice.' And it isn't just the LGBT community that might hear that refrain, it is heterosexuals who employ some of the same practices that homosexuals use.
In addition, if the states are saying to the LGBT community 'Your body our choice' because of the religious sentiments of their governing officials, the refrain becomes 'Your body my choice' to the LGBT community as well as to women by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians who are voting those officials into office.
What the leaked opinion and anticipated ruling prevent is a long, overdue national discussion on what is human life. This is an important discussion because the same logic used to determine the humanity of the unborn can also be employed to determine the human status of people at various stages of life.
If we are going to revisit Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue in a proper way, we can't allow for the human rights of the unborn to be determined by any other factor that the human status of the unborn. That means that women who are undergoing the difficulties of deciding on obtaining an abortion see their decision as a conflict between their rights and the religious sentiments of those governing the state she is in. And yet, that is what Alito and company are doing if leaked opinion holds. In addition, they are providing an opening for other rights based on privacy to come in harm's way.
