The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
6 — Wednesday, May 25, 2022
BRANDON COWIT
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
VANESSA KIEFER
Editor in Chief
I
n a leaked draft by Justice
Samuel
Alito,
the
majority
opinion of the Court declared
that Roe v. Wade, the landmark
decision that protects a woman’s
right to privacy to have an abortion,
is to be overruled. If — or, the
increasingly more likely option, when
— Roe v. Wade (referred to as just
Roe in conversation and this article)
is overturned, federal protection
of the right to an abortion will be
revoked. Immediately following the
leak, protests erupted and politicians
began to vocalize plans of action,
but the national mood amongst
advocates for women’s reproductive
rights was effectively crushed. It
feels, to many, that all hope is lost.
The initial response to hearing
such news is to play the “blame
game.” For incensed people, this
method can feel constructive, but
there is often a tendency to put
blame into the wrong hands. We
can’t blame Susan Sarandon because
of her opposition to Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election.
We also can’t necessarily assign full
blame to “pro-life” voters — they
were not the final decision-makers
when it came to overturning Roe.
Assigning false accusations to make
ourselves feel better in times of crisis
is not effective and does nothing to
inspire action. We must think clearly
about who to blame, why and what
we can do about it.
Although a controversial issue,
the right to an abortion and the
survival of Roe is widely favored by
the American public. Recent polls
show that 54% of Americans are in
support of upholding Roe, and 70%
believe that the decision to have
an abortion should be at the will
of a woman. Despite its polarizing
nature, the subject of reproductive
rights is surprisingly agreed upon
by a majority of voters. With the
understanding that most Americans
are in support of abortion, it can
come as a shock that the decision
is being overturned. But, in reality,
Roe and its guarantees have not
been secure since its day of origin,
even as opportunities to provide that
security have emerged countless
times in Congress and the Supreme
Court.
On the campaign trail, President
Joe Biden made a promise to codify
Roe, an action that would enshrine
the right to abortion into the federal
legal code. On May 11, 2022, the
Senate failed to pass a bill that
would further protect the right to
have an abortion by codifying Roe.
It is not entirely correct to place the
burden of blame on Biden — any
executive action he could take to
protect reproductive rights would
be met with legal resistance from
states opposed to abortion. Sens.
Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Susan
Collins, R-Maine, though, can be
assigned some criticism. Their “no”
votes represented a noted opposition
to abortion rights, but the failure
of the bill could also be heavily
attributed to the existence of the
filibuster in the Senate.
Time
after
time,
legislative
measures have been taken to protect
reproductive rights in the United
States, including the Affordable
Care Act’s coverage of certain
contraceptives
and
this
recent
attempt
by
Senate
Democrats.
Despite various laws and faithful
efforts, we must now understand that
with the failure to codify this right,
the only way to assuredly safeguard
the right to choose is through the
Supreme Court. The politicians
we have voted into office may hold
opinions or introduce policy, but the
justices that they appoint wield the
real power when it comes to the fate
of abortion.
Although insulated from public
opinion, the Supreme Court should
bear the brunt of our outrage.
In the assumed 5-4 decision, all
three of former President Donald
Trump’s appointed justices, along
with Justices Alito and Clarence
Thomas, voted to overturn Roe due
to its “weak” reasoning. In their
nomination
hearings,
Trump’s
nominees considered Roe to be
“precedent” and the “law of the
land,” but in the end, they voted to
topple this allegedly settled decision.
It is the unstable word of these
lofty lawmakers that determines
the future of abortion in the United
States, and their action — or lack
thereof — defines the future of
reproductive and women’s rights.
Late Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg is commonly noted
by the left as an inspirational feminist
from recent history. Nominated by
former President Bill Clinton in 1993,
Ginsburg was devoted to equality of
the sexes, specifically in education
and lessening the wage gap. She is
often attributed a legacy of being
“notorious,” but in reality, her refusal
to retire during former President
Barack Obama’s term was the final
and most burdensome threat to
the fate of abortion in the United
States. We have to stop ourselves
from thinking of her as the media
icon she became, and more as the
judge that she was. By retiring in or
before 2014, Obama would have been
able to nominate another liberal to
take her place, which would have
limited Trump’s opportunity to
appoint three conservative justices
in his term. Ginsburg would have
protected her legacy and saved Roe
with her retirement.
It feels good to place blame, but it
only does us any good when it carries
weight. Don’t blame the average
QUIN ZAPOLI
Editorial Page Editor
How do we keep our
community safe? Policing
is not the answer.
GEO’S ABOLITION CAUCUS
Read more at michigandaily.com
LINDSEY SPENCER
Opinion Columnist
Lets be tactical about the “blame
game” with Roe
F
rom April 25-27, Ann Arbor
hosted the Problem-Oriented
Policing (POP) Conference,
which is organized annually by
the Center for Problem-Oriented
Policing at Arizona State University
and features a bevy of police officers,
policing technology companies and
crime researchers and consultants
for an annual conference.
The conference was hosted jointly
by the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s
Office, the Ann Arbor Police
Department and the University
of Michigan Police Department,
which is part of the Division of
Public Safety and Security (DPSS).
The POP Conference embodies,
promotes and attempts to legitimize
the existential and everyday threats
that police pose to all of us across
the University’s campus, Ann Arbor
and Washtenaw County.
Advocates of Problem-Oriented
Policing contend that police are
essential to solving homelessness,
mental
health
crises,
racially-
motivated
violence,
intimate
partner violence and other social ills
— even as policing has contributed
to the very problems it purports to
solve. While residents of Ann Arbor
often like to imagine the city as a
liberal refuge from problems that
only happen in “other” places, we
only have to look back to 2014 in
Ann Arbor to see how police officers
armed with deadly weapons and
protected by qualified immunity are
actively harmful to our community.
On Nov. 10, 2014, AAPD Officer
David Ried shot and killed Ann
Arbor resident Aura Rosser in her
own home. The police response to
Rosser’s boyfriend’s 911 call seeking
support for Rosser — a Black woman
experiencing a mental health crisis
— ended in her death instead. Ried
was never charged for her killing,
and was later promoted to sergeant
by the AAPD. John Seto, AAPD
chief at the time, was hired as U-M’s
Director of Housing Security, where
he remains to this day.
As abolitionists, we know that
viable
alternatives
to
policing
already exist. Rather than rebrand
the same old police reforms, we
believe in envisioning an unarmed,
non-police
emergency
response
in
Ann
Arbor,
including
the
University’s campus. Homelessness,
mental health crises and intimate
partner violence are complex social
issues
that
require
supportive
services that keep individuals safe,
housed and fed. Policing offers
none of these solutions. Rather than
throwing armed police at complex
societal problems, as this conference
advocates, we need to fund real
solutions that center on prevention
and address root causes.
Who needs time travel?
Design by Opinion Cartoonist Anya Singh
Read more at michigandaily.com