By Kentucky Treasurer Allison Ball
On the day that my husband Asa and I decided to start officially dating, we talked about many issues that were important to us, our faith, how many kids we wanted, and what music we liked. But one topic stood out. Asa told me the story of how, before he was born, doctors told his parents that there was a strong likelihood he would be born with severe disabilities. Their doctor said to abort him. Asa’s mom was told, “You are young. You can just try again later.” Thankfully, Asa’s parents followed up with their school doctor (they were college students at the time), and this doctor disagreed. She was a committed Christian with a strong sense of the value of every life. She encouraged Asa’s mom to give birth to her precious child. I’m so grateful to that doctor because that child was born a perfectly healthy baby boy who later grew up into the man who became my husband. I remember being moved by Asa’s story that October day when we started dating. I had always had a sense that babies in the womb were worthy of protection, and this was a reminder. My belief has only been affirmed by the birth of my own beautiful children, our three-year-old son, and our ten-month-old daughter. I have heard their heartbeats at eight weeks, felt them kick and hiccup in my tummy, seen them squirm on ultrasounds, and heard them cry as they emerged in birth.
When does life begin? How do we as a society care for every mother, every baby, and every family? These are hugely important questions. Wherever you have landed on these questions in the past, please stay with me and hear me out.
As a lawyer, I want first to provide some legal clarity about what the overturning of Roe v. Wade by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would actually do. It does not eliminate abortion in America. It does not add or subtract to the Constitution. It merely returns a controversial issue to the decision-making of the people.
To fully grasp this issue, it is important to remember what you were taught in elementary school. The American system of government was thoughtfully designed in the Constitution to function through three branches of government: The Executive Branch to execute laws, the Legislative Branch to make laws, and the Judicial Branch to interpret laws. This is basic civics.
According to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for the Court to determine whether a Constitutional right exists, it must:
First, look to the text of the Constitution to determine if there is specific language justifying protection for the asserted right. If there is no such text, the Court should inquire whether “the longstanding traditions of American society” have protected the asserted right. If neither of these conditions [are] met, no fundamental right can be said to exist.[1]
The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and prior to Roe v. Wade, there was no longstanding tradition of legal abortion in America. In fact, “the longstanding traditions of American society”[2] mostly made it illegal.
The Court fabricated a constitutional right to abortion in Roe, and the illogical case law that followed has both broadened and muddied a fictional right to privacy in order to shield abortion from democracy.
In the absence of Constitutional text or longstanding American tradition, the Court is required to return the issue of abortion to the people.[3] Alito’s opinion does exactly that—no more, no less.
In the case of abortion, Alito’s leaked opinion would restore proper order among the three branches of government by returning to states a political issue that has continuously distorted “the public perception of the role of [the] Court.” Supreme Court justices are not elected and have life-tenure to insulate them from the public since their job is not to create laws but interpret them. The legislature, however, is, by design, responsive to citizens through elections and makes laws accordingly.
In a nutshell, Dobbs merely returns this issue to the people. So, after Dobbs, states like California and New York will continue to have extremely liberal abortion laws, while Kentucky and Texas will not. And as Peggy Noonan noted in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion, “[it] is as close to resolving the dilemma as we, as human beings in a huge and varied nation, will get.”
What does this mean for us as a country? It means we now have a chance for everyone to move forward with greater compassion, empathy, and civility. We are the ones through our elected officials, who make the decisions regarding the questions of life raised earlier. For those of us who rejoice in the chance to protect life, this is our opportunity to provide real support to mothers, children, and families. We must rally around them and ensure that every life has a chance to fulfill his or her potential. We should be creative in lawmaking, in our churches, in our nonprofits, and private lives to address the real needs of people. States that pass pro-life laws should follow the examples of places like Kentucky, Idaho, Ohio, and many others in providing reimbursements for adoption costs. Likewise, churches could create anonymous sponsorship programs that partner with mothers who choose life, footing the bill for every prenatal visit and accompanying medical costs. Those same mothers could stay in contact with the church once their children are born, for as long as needed. We should encourage innovative nonprofits that meet real needs, like Family Scholar House in KY, which provides housing, child care, and other support systems to single moms so they can attend college while caring for young children. We need to support pregnancy care centers, which are lifelines in many communities for expectant parents in need. Workplaces should celebrate pregnancies and create new systems that allow the office to function fully and efficiently even when women take maternity leave. We should improve childcare options and expand opportunities for fathers to be involved with their children.
We must provide sincere care, love, and counseling for post-abortive mothers, especially those who struggle with anxiety and depression as a result of their decision. This is the way to win the culture. The overturning of Roe will provide a turning point within which the country might grow in character, compassion, and love and perhaps emerge a better people for ourselves and the generations who will come after us. This is the time for the better angels of our nature to prevail.
[1] Scalia’s Court, pg. 92; Planned Parenthood v. Casey (dissent).
[2] Planned Parenthood v. Casey (dissent).
[3] Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) (Scalia’s Dissent).
The Overturning of Roe
On the day that my husband Asa and I decided to start officially dating, we talked about many issues that were important to us, our faith, how many kids we wanted, and what music we liked. But one topic stood out. Asa told me the story of how, before he was born, doctors told his parents that there was a strong likelihood he would be born with severe disabilities. Their doctor said to abort him. Asa’s mom was told, “You are young. You can just try again later.” Thankfully, Asa’s parents followed up with their school doctor (they were college students at the time), and this doctor disagreed. She was a committed Christian with a strong sense of the value of every life. She encouraged Asa’s mom to give birth to her precious child. I’m so grateful to that doctor because that child was born a perfectly healthy baby boy who later grew up into the man who became my husband. I remember being moved by Asa’s story that October day when we started dating. I had always had a sense that babies in the womb were worthy of protection, and this was a reminder. My belief has only been affirmed by the birth of my own beautiful children, our three-year-old son, and our ten-month-old daughter. I have heard their heartbeats at eight weeks, felt them kick and hiccup in my tummy, seen them squirm on ultrasounds, and heard them cry as they emerged in birth.
When does life begin? How do we as a society care for every mother, every baby, and every family? These are hugely important questions. Wherever you have landed on these questions in the past, please stay with me and hear me out.
As a lawyer, I want first to provide some legal clarity about what the overturning of Roe v. Wade by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would actually do. It does not eliminate abortion in America. It does not add or subtract to the Constitution. It merely returns a controversial issue to the decision-making of the people.
To fully grasp this issue, it is important to remember what you were taught in elementary school. The American system of government was thoughtfully designed in the Constitution to function through three branches of government: The Executive Branch to execute laws, the Legislative Branch to make laws, and the Judicial Branch to interpret laws. This is basic civics.
According to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for the Court to determine whether a Constitutional right exists, it must:
First, look to the text of the Constitution to determine if there is specific language justifying protection for the asserted right. If there is no such text, the Court should inquire whether “the longstanding traditions of American society” have protected the asserted right. If neither of these conditions [are] met, no fundamental right can be said to exist.[1]
The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and prior to Roe v. Wade, there was no longstanding tradition of legal abortion in America. In fact, “the longstanding traditions of American society”[2] mostly made it illegal.
The Court fabricated a constitutional right to abortion in Roe, and the illogical case law that followed has both broadened and muddied a fictional right to privacy in order to shield abortion from democracy.
In the absence of Constitutional text or longstanding American tradition, the Court is required to return the issue of abortion to the people.[3] Alito’s opinion does exactly that—no more, no less.
In the case of abortion, Alito’s leaked opinion would restore proper order among the three branches of government by returning to states a political issue that has continuously distorted “the public perception of the role of [the] Court.” Supreme Court justices are not elected and have life-tenure to insulate them from the public since their job is not to create laws but interpret them. The legislature, however, is, by design, responsive to citizens through elections and makes laws accordingly.
In a nutshell, Dobbs merely returns this issue to the people. So, after Dobbs, states like California and New York will continue to have extremely liberal abortion laws, while Kentucky and Texas will not. And as Peggy Noonan noted in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion, “[it] is as close to resolving the dilemma as we, as human beings in a huge and varied nation, will get.”
What does this mean for us as a country? It means we now have a chance for everyone to move forward with greater compassion, empathy, and civility. We are the ones through our elected officials, who make the decisions regarding the questions of life raised earlier. For those of us who rejoice in the chance to protect life, this is our opportunity to provide real support to mothers, children, and families. We must rally around them and ensure that every life has a chance to fulfill his or her potential. We should be creative in lawmaking, in our churches, in our nonprofits, and private lives to address the real needs of people. States that pass pro-life laws should follow the examples of places like Kentucky, Idaho, Ohio, and many others in providing reimbursements for adoption costs. Likewise, churches could create anonymous sponsorship programs that partner with mothers who choose life, footing the bill for every prenatal visit and accompanying medical costs. Those same mothers could stay in contact with the church once their children are born, for as long as needed. We should encourage innovative nonprofits that meet real needs, like Family Scholar House in KY, which provides housing, child care, and other support systems to single moms so they can attend college while caring for young children. We need to support pregnancy care centers, which are lifelines in many communities for expectant parents in need. Workplaces should celebrate pregnancies and create new systems that allow the office to function fully and efficiently even when women take maternity leave. We should improve childcare options and expand opportunities for fathers to be involved with their children.
We must provide sincere care, love, and counseling for post-abortive mothers, especially those who struggle with anxiety and depression as a result of their decision. This is the way to win the culture. The overturning of Roe will provide a turning point within which the country might grow in character, compassion, and love and perhaps emerge a better people for ourselves and the generations who will come after us. This is the time for the better angels of our nature to prevail.
[1] Scalia’s Court, pg. 92; Planned Parenthood v. Casey (dissent).
[2] Planned Parenthood v. Casey (dissent).
[3] Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) (Scalia’s Dissent).
