Roe v. Wade stuns America like a zombie apocalypse  

By Alex P. Vidal

“I’m against abortion. On the other hand, I believe in a woman’s choice.”—Nancy Reagan

EVEN if I am not comfortable with this subject matter, I am obligated to make a stand and say something about the hottest topic matter that has rocked the United States in the past 48 hours: Roe v. Wade.

But, first, why would Roe v. Wade suddenly occupy the front seat of the national discussion when America is grappling with the issues on all-time high inflation, immigration woes, Ukraine invasion by Russia, the come-backing Omicron sub-variants, and the midterm election multi-state primaries?

Who would have thought that a “zombie” slumbering for 50 years suddenly rose from the cemetery and terrorized America in 2022?

Nobody but that’s exactly what is happening in the United States today now that the Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe V. Wade, the genesis of all this hysteria, was leaked in public.

The controversial Roe v. Wade, a 1973 lawsuit that famously led to the United States Supreme Court making a ruling on women’s right to an abortion, or the attempt to overturn it, has been resurrected and the wave of panic among the stakeholders has become like a zombie apocalypse.


As of press time protest rallies have continued to be staged in the U.S.  Supreme Court and it appears the issue won’t die down easily in the next few weeks.

Fears and disbelief suddenly gripped the liberals and those who support legal abortion especially when the Supreme Court confirmed the draft’s authenticity.

For starters, the landmark SC decision emanated the case of Jane Roe, an unmarried pregnant woman, who filed suit on behalf of herself and others to challenge Texas abortion laws.

A Texas doctor joined Roe’s lawsuit, arguing that the state’s abortion laws were too vague for doctors to follow. He had previously been arrested for violating the statute.

Abortion was illegal in Texas at that time unless it was done to save the mother’s life. It was also a crime to get an abortion or to attempt one.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided two important things:

—The United States Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion.

—But the abortion right is not absolute. It must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and prenatal life.

The Court split the difference between the two arguments presented. First, the Court recognized that abortion does fall under women’s privacy rights.


The constitutional right to privacy comes from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause does not explicitly state that Americans have a right to privacy.

However, the Supreme Court has recognized such a right going all the way back to 1891.

Just one year before Roe, the Supreme Court held that “in a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty’ must be broad indeed.”

In Roe v. Wade, the Court decided that this right to privacy extends to a woman’s control over a pregnancy.

The justices acknowledged that being forced to continue a pregnancy puts a lot at risk for women, such as: Physical health, Mental health, Financial burdens, Social stigma.

The abortion debate is mainly within right-libertarianism between cultural liberals and social conservatives as left-libertarians generally see it as a settled issue regarding individual rights, as they support legal access to abortion as part of what they consider to be a woman’s right to control her body and its functions.


EVEN if President Rodrigo Duterte has ordered an end to on-line sabong “effective immediately”, we doubt if some of the operators who have invested heavily like Atong Ang, will obey him.

For the big-time gamblers and operators, it’s not a joke to lose hundreds of millions of revenues in one fell swoop.

Aside from money they amass, big time gambling operators also gain power as they are also hailed like demigods by corrupt policemen, government officials, and media personalities who get regular payola.

As a sign of respect to the president’s authority, they might stop for a while, but might proceed once more with the gambling activity surreptitiously in clandestine operations when no one is watching, or when everyone has forgotten the praiseworthy edict.

Especially when Mr. Duterte is no longer in power.

(The author, who is now based in the New York City, used to be the editor of two local dailies in Iloilo.—Ed)