RIP Sarah Weddington

Sarah Weddington, who argued the case of Roe v. Wade, has died.

I have written a lot about abortion issues on this blog and elsewhere.  Weddington lived it.  The fight for abortion rights then and now was a group effort, but a young minister's daughter from Texas was a good face for it at the time (and now).  

She was also game, as shown by her life in politics (Ann Richards was her legislative aide and later became governor; Weddington eventually worked for the Carter Administration, including helping to pick federal judges), academia (saw someone on Twitter praise her as a role model), and public speaking.  

I wondered about her lately with the Texas litigation and all that. I have not seen her mentioned in the coverage though obviously have not read it all. The NYT obit references her being a guest of honor when New York passed abortion rights regulation a couple years ago.  But, it seems like she had health problems (she died in her mid-70s) the last few years.

Weddington was not just all about abortion as shown by her career and advocacy.  Abortion rights was a key component all the same of her fight for women's equality, privacy rights, and so forth.  It is also why the subject has long interested me.  Is it merely coincidence that Roe was first argued shortly after I was born?  

Prof. Colb today refuted the idea that you can separate abortion rights from other privacy matters, including because supposedly human life is involved.  She in part references Orthodox Jewish doctrine, reflecting her family background.  The subject of menstruation and Jewish law by chance was also one of the Monday links over at Religion Clause.  

My overall thought here is that what "human life" is in respect to something with special meaning is a matter of individual belief and conscience.  This was noted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  Likewise, many things significantly affect "human life" while still being constitutional rights.  Parents have control over their children (the born ones), even if their choices significantly affect their lives.  

The blog and article talk about Jewish beliefs. Weddington was a minister's daughter.  Religions have a diverse view of ideas about proper behavior here.  The state should not pick and choose.  The right to privacy includes privately making choices involving family life and matters involving your own body.  Yes, regulated, like all things tend to be, but ultimately in a basic way it is your choice.  

This is also true specifically when a person chooses to have an abortion because of the nature of the embryo or fetus in some fashion.  The article here argues "eugenics" is a government policy.  As a factual matter, "reason bans" do not stop eugenics.  Ultimately, however, a basic point is that you do not have to marry someone white (or whatever) if you do not want to. Maybe, that is racist.  But, it is your call.  The choice to have an abortion is for the person involved.  Even if someone thinks it is "bad."

I was wondering about Linda Coffee, her co-counsel in Roe, who is a much more private person, and see she is quoted in this obit.  It ends in a way that is appropriate here as well:

“I am sure when my obituary is written, the lead paragraph will be about Roe v. Wade. I thought, over a period of time, that the right of a woman to make a decision about what she would do in a particular pregnancy would be accepted — that by this time, the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. , the controversy over abortion would have gradually faded away like the closing scenes of a movie and we could go on to other issues. I was wrong.”