Would it be empathetic, in regards to Sustainable Development Goal Five (Gender Equality) and Sustainable Development Goal Sixteen (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), for the male justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to abstain, or even recuse themselves from any cases concerning Womens Health and defer to the wisdom, first-hand knowledge, and personal experience and expertise of the female justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to rule amongst themselves on any and all cases related to Womens Health for their fellow 'sisterhood' within the citizenry? Would that simple 'procedural change' solely in cases that concern Womens Health be more just in the eyes of women in the United States; and possibly women across the world? ChatGPT4: 'More Creative' Response Option - (published 05/15/2023)
This is a complex and controversial question that may have different opinions and perspectives. Based on web search results, Sustainable Development Goal Five (SDG 5) aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, while Sustainable Development Goal Sixteen (SDG 16) aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Some possible arguments in favor of the male justices abstaining or recusing themselves from cases concerning women’s health are:
-
It would reduce the risk of bias, discrimination or paternalism from the male justices who may have different views or values on women’s health.
-
It would align with the principles of SDG 5 and SDG 16, which call for gender-responsive policies and institutions, equal participation and representation of women in decision-making, and access to justice for all.
Some possible arguments against the male justices abstaining or recusing themselves from cases concerning women’s health are:
-
It would violate the constitutional duty and oath of the male justices to uphold the law and serve the public interest without regard to gender or any other factor.
-
It would undermine the legitimacy and authority of the Supreme Court as a collegial and impartial body that deliberates and decides cases based on legal reasoning and evidence.
-
It would create a precedent for other justices to abstain or recuse themselves from cases involving other groups or issues that they do not belong to or identify with, which could lead to fragmentation and inconsistency in the judicial system.
-
It would contradict the spirit of SDG 5 and SDG 16, which advocate for inclusive and participatory societies, partnerships and dialogue among diverse stakeholders, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Ultimately, whether this procedural change would be more just in the eyes of women across the United States or the world may depend on their personal views, values and experiences. A possible way to explore this question further is to conduct surveys, interviews or consultations with women from different backgrounds, regions and sectors to gather their opinions and feedback.