By Mitchell Evans
Just days after Mississippi issued a ruling on a similar law, an Alabama judge ruled that doctors at abortion clinics cannot have the right to admit, in essence forcefully place a patient into a psychological ward, which would allow the power to the doctors to stop any abortions from happening.
The bible belt is no stranger to abortion opposition. In fact, Roe v. Wade was a case that started in Dallas, Texas, in 1971. The problem lives on in these states, not only because of their largely religious political leanings, but for values that date back to their confederate heritage. The separation of church in state may have been laid out in the constitution, but for many they are inseparable. Whether or not anyone admits that their objection to abortion is politically charged, the title of the “bible belt states” does coincide with the majority of contention of abortion.
Many people will bill these court cases as inhibiting women’s rights and call these types of cases sexist. In 2007, a similar case made it to the supreme court and the court ruled against the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, with the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling, which ruled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was constitutional. It was challenged because there is no directive saying that a doctor can deem a second trimester abortion necessary to preserve the life of the mother, but upheld because there is a lack of “medical consensus” on the issue. It leaves the door open for that rule to be overturned once a sufficient medical consensus has been established, but, nonetheless, the challenge came from the more liberal districts in the country, Northern California and Southern New York.
To this date there are very few rights denied to women and it is a farce to see any denial as something more than a misinterpretation of the constitution. There may be something very wrong about anyone denying abortion, but as an issue it does not show signs of going away anytime soon.