Good Old Alabama

So, they did it. The good old legislature of the State of Alabama passed the nation’s most restrictive ban on abortion, announcing proudly that they made it so harsh so that it would have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

That, they said, would cause the nation’s highest court to reverse Roe v. Wade, the decision that said, essentially, the government has no right to interfere with a woman’s privacy when she consults a doctor and decides to have an abortion.

Well, give them credit. And also give credit to lawmakers in Georgia and Louisiana and some other states who are on the same track, some getting even more restrictive. They want a simple ruling that there is no Constitutional right to privacy, the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision.

So, what would it mean if they win the court challenge they are seeking?

Well, essentially two things.

First, abortions would be stamped out in those states, which means that people who could afford it would just go to some other state for an abortion.

Of course, if the women don’t have the money to go someplace else, it would mean a lot of poor and unwanted children would be added to the population of those states every year. 

It also means that women of child-bearing age who are considering moving to one of those states for a job or to go to a certain college - go, Tide! - or to marry someone from that state might not go. It’s the kind of thing you can’t easily quantify,

Well, that’s simple enough. At least until the orphanages fill up and the costs start to mount and the taxes increase, or the scandals break when those infants don’t get the medical care they need. Hey, what could go wrong when a state has to raise its taxes?

And, as long as we are looking at the power that states will now be free to exercise over pregnant women, just take a moment to look at the existing practice of charging women with fetal assault if they give birth to a child with signs of drug exposure.

Good Old Alabama leads the pack with its record of the most prosecutions of pregnant women who were charged with “chemical endangerment,” but according to Amnesty International there were more than 300 measures introduced in state legislatures to restrict sexual or reproductive rights.

But, that’s just the simple and obvious result of this new push to kill Roe v. Wade. The second problem is a lot more interesting.

It’s what will happen when a court rules there is no Constitutional right to privacy - the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Let’s start simple. It would shorten a whole lot of crime shows by a few minutes. Why? Well, the police would no longer wait around for a warrant to search a car when they stop someone. Just step outside and let me search, now open the trunk.

Or, let’s say some government agency wants to tap a phone or hack a computer or look at credit card purchases that someone made over the past six months. No problem there. No need to bother a judge for a warrant.

And if someone calls the DA with a complaint about your business, well their investigators can just walk in and take those business records. Never know what you might find. No need to even tell the subject of an investigation that they are the target.

Now we can be pretty sure that Democratic-controlled states would investigate a lot of Republicans, just like Republican-controlled states would investigate Democrats.

And it might even improve race relations when Blacks and Hispanics see that police are stopping and searching nine or ten times as many whites as they are blacks. Hey, everybody is fair game for walking suspicious. And you know that one thick attache case with financial records could be used to steal more money than the contents of the pockets of a thousand kids on the street.

Yes, getting rid of the Constitutional right to privacy could really do some amazing things. Maybe even get the President to show his tax returns. Oh, wait, he wouldn’t have to show them. Any one of a half dozen legislative committees could simply take them.

After all, there is no right to privacy any more.