I am not an attorney, but I got a good sense of what “standing” means in legal terms when the Supreme Court decided that same sex marriages were OK. They ruled that other people did not have “standing” on the issue. In other words, if two gay men get married, others are not impacted by their decision to marry.
The same holds true about issues around contraception, interracial marriages and abortions.
“What does standing mean legally?
There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:
- Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. …
- Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.
- Redressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.”
The same holds true about issues around contraception, interracial marriages and abortions, which seem to be in the news the past two days. I was sharing with our friend Jill, if certain groups want to try to make contraception illegal, they truly have no standing on the issue. But, good luck with that. Not only do the significant majority of women and men want contraception to be available there is a correlation between using contraception and fewer abortions. The last data point I saw said a very significant majority of US Catholic women want contraception in spite of the Pope’s position.
I saw one Senator back track off a stance on interracial marriages. He realized quickly his position was in quick sand. When Loving v Virginia was upheld by a vote of 9 to 0 by the Supreme Court, interracial marriage was legally permitted and could not be outlawed by a state. The last data point I saw was over ten years ago noting 13% of all marriages in the US are interracial. That statistic is likely higher today. And, just watch any TV commercial. The couples in the commercial are quite often interracial. That is a sure indication that train has left the station.
The issue of abortion is one that is in the forefront. Some would argue the deceased never was able to have standing, but Roe v Wade created a pattern a governance that provides guardrails on what women can and cannot do. While I personally would not suggest an abortion, I am a man and it is not my body. I certainly have no standing over another person’s body. So, I support a woman having governance over her own body. Plus, there is a correlation between greater poverty and increased family size.
Let’s take this one step more. People who tend to argue against Roe v Wade the most tend to be folks who would also argue for the government to leave us alone and let us live. The hypocrisy of this contradiction resounds. So, if government can rule a woman’s body, then we should fine or jail people who put themselves and others in jeopardy. Gun ownership – no more. Drinking and driving – more severe punishment. Obesity and taking up our healthcare spend as a result – fines for the extra cost of care. Passing along STDs or HIV, jail time. And, so on.
The majority of Americans want Roe v Wade to continue. Those who want it overturned may be like the dog that has caught the bus. Now what are you going to do? My fervent request is for women and men to tell these folks what they think by voting.