Justice Samuel Alito’s arrogance and hubris were on full display as the author of Dobbs et al. vs. Jackson Women’s Health et al., overruling Roe vs. Wade. Reading between the lines, he also seemed to say that if women don’t like how he and his Republican-appointed colleagues have curtailed a woman’s constitutional right to choose if, when or how she controls her body, then women can take action by electing representatives supportive of their position and legislatively change the law.
In his opinion in Dobbs, Justice Alito noted that “Women are not without electoral or political power.” Then, to show his disdain for women not using this power, he noted that more than 50% of the voting population since 1978 have been women. His position seems to be that since Roe was not codified during that time, it is obvious women have little interest in electing representatives to protect a woman’s right to choose.
The old adage that “elections have consequences” has never been truer than it is today. When political candidates tell you they will appoint Supreme Court justices that will strip a woman of her constitutional right to choose, then maybe they should be believed.
Justice Alito knows that with a lifetime appointment and a polarized, divided electorate, he and his conservative colleagues are well-positioned to eviscerate any “fundamental right … not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution,” since constitutional protection for such a right has to be “deeply rooted in (our) history and tradition” and essential to our nation’s “scheme of ordered history.”
Under that analysis, a woman’s right to choose is not the only right at risk.
— William Maxey
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.