Two judicial abominations compared

Today is the thirty-sixth anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

It's hard to realize that it's been that short a time since the mentality of Dred Scott v. Sanford has returned, and the law has been able to conceive of living members of species homo sapiens who are not persons.

That such should be the case in an age which prides itself on its sophistication and enlightenment is not only tragic, but an indictment of our entire society. That the issue is not debated on those terms, but in terms of the alleged Constitutional (!) right of a third party to take the life of that living entity at will does not speak any better for our capacity for rational thought than it does for our own humanity. The Fourteenth Amendment- the supposed rationale for Roe- does not mention abortion, and by no obvious logic can be plausibly said to guarantee a right to it. On the other hand, that very amendment says, in so many words,

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No, there is simply no doubt about it: the rationale of Roe rests upon the very same assumption that the Dred Scott decision made. Neither judicial abomination could survive the conviction that living members of our species are, by definition, persons.

Ironic that we observe this somber anniversary two days after the inauguration of a president who, by terms of that earlier Supreme Court decision, is himself would not be considered a person before the law, having "no rights which the white man (was) bound to respect."