To the Editor:
Back in the early 1980s, students majoring in English across the country found themselves confronted by a new method of critical interpretation called “deconstruction.” At the time, it was the latest non-idea from French nihilist scholars that posited the theory that no work of literature means anything except what the reader wants  it to mean.

So, for example, Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” is not really about a farmer taking a break from his busy life to appreciate the beauty of a snowstorm. It is about the suppression of the masses, or it is about the oppression of women; or it is about a person longing for death who is about to commit suicide, or any other interpretation a reader might wish to put upon it.

What was not so well known at the time was that “deconstruction theory” was spreading simultaneously to law schools across the country. Budding lawyers were being taught that supposedly “settled laws” should be interpreted “creatively.” In other words — laws were just words and they could be reinterpreted or simply ignored according to one’s own philosophy.  And this theory remains in full force in many law schools across the country today.

So — what has this to do with the current controversy over Roe v. Wade? The fact is that, when the ruling was initially issued, the Supreme Court justices claimed to have found something in the Constitution called a “right  to privacy” and this “right” demanded access to abortion in all 50 states, regardless of the will of the voters or scientific or medical evidence about the unborn. Even those elated by the ruling were aware that it was made on very shaky legal grounds open to future challenges.

Think about it: If every citizen has a “right to privacy,” a creative lawyer could argue that therefore the government has no right to citizens’ health records; it has no right to know how much money citizens make; it has no right to know just where citizens live; and it certainly has no right to know anything about citizens’ bank accounts and investments. And of all this is because there is a right to privacy and that phrase could have numerous interpretations — just find the right lawyer.

This country is moving into a very dangerous mode. We have an administration that flagrantly ignores any and all laws that are not to its liking and brands anyone who objects a “White supremacist” or compares them to the Taliban. This is supremely ironic given that the Biden administration last summer turned an entire country over to the rule of the Taliban, bringing immense suffering upon the women and girls of that country.

Which raises the question: If “words do not mean anything” — what does?

Michael Nardacci

Albany