You could be, like, a federal judge suggesting that the 13th Amendment's prohibition on 'slavery or involuntary servitude' protected abortion since a pregnancy or motherhood that is unwanted is, like, 'involuntary servitude." What's wrong with that? Well, start here:
It is easy enough for a District Judge to be all alone in Amarillo or Lubbock. But it is quite difficult for a judge to maroon herself on a deserted
reason.com
But let me count some other ways...
1. If the definition of 'involuntary servitude' is 'doing something unwanted,' well, that sorta undercuts the whole basis for, well, any and all laws.
2. This is an originalist's field day. Whether because motherhood is not servitude, or because the intent of the framers was clear, or whether the original meaning of involuntary servitude was clear and abortion is obviously not a modern analog of that, this interpretation is just stupid.
3. It's also incredibly demeaning to the very real racial war that we fought in this country to eliminate slavery. You might as well just equate yourself to Holocaust survivors for gods sake.
Look, it took a while, and many don't like how it happened, but the proabortion side
lost in the courts, and for the foreseeable future. Personally I think they'll do quite well in the legislatures, and if so, well, so be it. But for God's sake take your gripes there. If this is an issue that public opinion and democratic processes will control, I would imagine that both sides believe -- or at least they should -- that if they lose the battle of persuasion, then shame on them. And if they don't believe that, well, they should just get out of the fight now.
pennstate.rivals.com
