The Tyranny of the Majority: Why Abortion Restrictions Are Unjust

The United States may not be perfect, but it has made significant strides towards addressing the dangers of what can be called the 'tyranny of the majority'. This phenomenon occurs when the majority's will is imposed on those in the minority, often without adequate protection. When applied to the discussion of abortion, the concerns over a homogenous majority often focus on 'poor people'. However, the historical context of the early United States shows a diverse society where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were established to protect the rights of a federal government, ensuring that no single group could dominate another.

Protecting the Weaker Sections of Society

Historically, the federal government has recognized the importance of protecting the rights of minority groups. For instance, the prohibition of 'bills of attainder' means that the legislature cannot pass laws to punish individuals. Similarly, treason charges require more than just a statement; they need an 'overt act'. Another critical principle is the prohibition of an official religion by the federal government, a move that addressed the discriminatory practices of the time in England where only members of the Church of England could hold public office.

Furthermore, the amendment of the Bill of Rights in the 1860s expanded these protections further to include rights for newly freed slaves, recognizing their status as full citizens and providing them with equal rights. This expansion did not occur immediately but came with the passage of new laws allowing them to vote and access public places.

The Evolution of Abortion Laws

Abortion was not illegal in the United States until the late 18th century. When the government sought to outlaw alcohol, a constitutional amendment was deemed necessary due to the established legality of alcohol. Decades later, they realized their mistake and corrected it. Similarly, the arguments against abortion often fail to acknowledge the actual conditions under which it occurs.

Protection of Medical Practice and Patient Autonomy

The landmark case Roe v. Wade was not about 'abortion rights', but rather about the ability of doctors to practice medicine safely. In this case, a doctor complained about the poor drafting of the law, fearing imprisonment for possibly performing a medically necessary abortion. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the doctor, noting that the first-trimester abortion was safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. The court felt it was better to leave the decision to medical professionals rather than the legislature.

Many proponents of strict abortion laws believe it to be a dangerous procedure, which is far from the truth. Studies have consistently shown that abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term. Maternal mortality rates associated with abortion are low, and complications are rare.

Fetal Viability and Mother's Health

Opponents of abortion also argue that a fetus becomes viable much earlier than 24 weeks, around the second trimester. However, the minimum viability threshold recognized by the court is indeed 24 weeks, which is approximately 6 months. At this point, the chances of survival for the newborn are slim, with a birth weight of around 1 pound 2 ounces. Many states do not cover extraordinary measures for infants born this prematurely.

It is also important to note that women can sometimes die while waiting for hospital committees and courts to make medically necessary decisions about abortions. Additionally, late-term conditions such as hydrops fetalis can severely impact both the mother and the fetus, often requiring early delivery to manage the condition.

Conclusion

The fight over abortion rights is a complex issue that often highlights the tension between the will of the majority and the protections afforded by the Constitution. While the majority may have concerns, the historical and legal context of the United States emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of the minority and ensuring that the medical profession is able to make safe and informed decisions without interference from the legislature.