A documentary on the History Channel about the witch hunts in Salem would provide an in-depth look into one of the darkest periods in American history. This film would explore the hysteria and fear that swept through the small town of Salem, Massachusetts in the late 17th century, resulting in the execution of twenty innocent people, mostly women, accused of witchcraft. The documentary would delve into the background of the witch hunts, examining the social, cultural, and religious factors that contributed to the mass hysteria. It would discuss the Puritan lifestyle and beliefs that dominated the town and how these strict religious doctrines influenced their views on witchcraft and the Devil. The film would examine the role of religion in perpetuating the witch hunts, with emphasis on the sermons and writings of influential figures at the time. Additionally, the documentary would highlight the initial accusations and trials that ignited the witch hunt frenzy.
Nelson George, pictured at the premiere of his Say Hey, Willie Mays! documentary in 2022, was one of the first journalists to write about DJ Kool Herc.
It isn t that this party in 1973 didn t take place but Jay Quan and other historians point out that some of the same innovations were going on at other parties in other places. At the time, this party-culture phenomenon didn t even have a name the term hip-hop wouldn t be coined for several more years and most people, even the ones involved in it, were not considering its future.
Additionally, the documentary would highlight the initial accusations and trials that ignited the witch hunt frenzy. It would feature interviews with historians and experts to provide a thorough analysis of the trial proceedings, including the use of spectral evidence and the unfair bias against the accused. Through reenactments and archival records, the film would recreate the tense atmosphere of the courtroom and the tactics used by the accusers, such as the infamous "touch test" and the tormenting of the accused.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades
Anti-abortion activists rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
In a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."
The decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.
Roe v. Wade and the future of reproductive rights in America
What might life look like in a post-Roe America?
Joining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks. Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."
Dissenting were Justices Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama. The said that the court decision means that "young women today will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers." Indeed, they said the court's opinion means that "from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest personal and familial costs."
"With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent," they wrote.
Alito's opinion is a tour de force of the various criticisms of Roe that have long existed in academia
Alito's 78-page opinion, which has a 30-page appendix, seemingly leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution — and similarly, no evidence that peoples' reliance on the court's abortion precedents over the past half century should matter.
Alito pointed for instance, to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld the central holding of Roe and was written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, all Republican appointees to the court. Alito pointed to language in the Casey opinion that he said "conceded" reliance interests were not really implicated because contraception could prevent almost all unplanned pregnancies.
Roe v. Wade and the future of reproductive rights in America
The movement against abortion rights is nearing its apex. But it began way before Roe
In fact, though, that 1992 opinion went on to dismiss that very argument as "unrealistic," because it "refuse[s] to face the fact" that for decades "people have organized intimate relationships and made choices . in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." Not exactly the concession that Alito described.
It is not unusual for justices to cherry pick quotes but not so out of context and not from former colleagues who are still alive and privately, not amused at all.
In the end, though, Alito's opinion has a larger objective, perhaps multiple objectives.
Writing for the majority, he said forthrightly that abortion is a matter to be decided by states and the voters in the states. "We hold," he wrote, that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion." As to what standard the courts should apply in the event that a state regulation is challenged, Alito said any state regulation of abortion is presumptively valid and "must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought" it was serving "legitimate state interests," including "respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development." In addition, he noted, states are entitled to regulate abortion to eliminate "gruesome and barbaric" medical procedures; to "preserve the integrity of the medical profession"; and to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability, including barring abortion in cases of fetal abnormality.
Ultimately, the translation of all that is that states appear to be completely free to ban abortions for any reason.
Reproductive rights in America
Now that Roe is gone, a process that allows minors to get an abortion could disappear
Near the end of Friday's decision, Alito sought to allay fears about the wide-ranging nature of his opinion. "To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. "
But in his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas said the legal rationale for Friday's decision could be applied to overturn other major cases, including those that legalized gay marriage, barred the criminalization of consensual homosexual conduct, and protected the rights of married people to have access to contraception.
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all" of those precedents. because they are "demonstrably erroneous.'"
The court's liberals noted that Thomas's language cast doubt on Alito's assurances at the end of his opinion, that this opinion was really only about abortion.
"The first problem with the majority's account comes from Justice Thomas's concurrence—which makes clear he is not with the program," they wrote. "In saying that nothing in today's opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case."
The next steps on abortion across the country will play out in a variety of ways, almost all of them resulting in abortion bans.
Several states — among them Mississippi, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — still have decades-old abortion bans on their books; with Roe overturned, those states could revert to a pre-Roe environment. Officials in such states could seek to enforce old laws, or ask the courts to reinstate them. For example, a Michigan law dating back to 1931 would make abortion a felony. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has been working to try to block that law.
A cascade of newly active state laws
Another path to banning abortion involves "trigger bans," newer laws pushed through by anti-abortion rights legislators in many states in anticipation of the Supreme Court's action. Some 15 states – in the South, West and Midwest – have such laws in place, according to CRR and Guttmacher, but they fall into different categories.
Some states will act quickly to ban abortion. According to a new analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, South Dakota, Kentucky and Louisiana have laws in place that lawmakers designed explicitly to take effect immediately upon the fall of the Roe precedent. Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas – where most abortions are already illegal after about six weeks of pregnancy – have similar laws, which would take effect after 30 days. Guttmacher says seven other "trigger ban" states have laws that would require state officials such as governors or attorneys general to take action to implement them.
Law
These 26 states would ban or restrict abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned
Sue Liebel, state policy director with the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said she expects officials in many of those Republican-controlled states to take swift action to do so.
"We have been talking to all of those about acting immediately," Liebel told NPR. "So when that happens, let's be ready. How do you get that back into play?"
In recent years, many states also have passed gestational bans prohibiting abortion at various stages of pregnancy. Courts have blocked many of those laws in response to legal challenges, including laws in Georgia, Ohio, and Idaho that ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Now those laws may take effect immediately. So too, could a law recently enacted in Oklahoma, that makes performing abortion a felony punishable by time in prison.
"It will be a tremendous change in an incredibly short period of time," said Julie Rikelman, senior director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Rikelman argued the Center's challenge to Mississippi's abortion ban at Supreme Court this term.
A host of other restrictions could limit where, by whom, and under what conditions abortion can be provided. Some examples include laws requiring parental notification or consent for abortions involving patients who are minors; and other health regulations for doctors and clinics that many medical groups say are unnecessary, expensive, and difficult to comply with.
Reproductive rights in America
Could overturning Roe v. Wade have implications beyond abortion?
Finally, Liebel said some governors may consider calling special sessions to pass new legislation in response to Friday's ruling.
More legal uncertainty
Legal experts say the court's decision will pose new questions for other courts to deal with – questions about how to apply the specific language of the final ruling to individual state laws.
Rikelman, the Center for Reproductive rights attorney, predicts "legal chaos" in states across the country in the immediate aftermath of the decision.
"I think what we will see is far more litigation in the federal courts – not less litigation," Rikelman said.
Some states such as Texas and Oklahoma have multiple abortion restrictions on the books, raising potential questions about which ones would be valid. Those laws each include different provisions and carry different penalties, adding to the potential confusion and prompting additional litigation in state and federal courts.
Liebel, with SBA Pro-Life America, acknowledged that more legal battles are likely.
"That's gonna take us back, frankly, to where we always have been. Each side tries to put their big toe right on that line and push the envelope," Liebel said.
Battles in state courts are also likely. Some state constitutions may offer protections for abortion rights notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In Florida, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and other reproductive rights groups are challenging a 15-week abortion ban modeled on Mississippi's law, on the grounds that it violates privacy rights protections guaranteed in Florida's state constitution.
Politics
Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court
Even without overturning Roe, Rikelman points to the Texas law known as S.B. 8, which took effect in September. The law, which has spawned several copycat proposals in other states, including Oklahoma, relies on individuals filing civil lawsuits to enforce an abortion ban.
Interstate enforcement battles
Abortion bans in restrictive states will likely bleed over to states that protect abortion rights as well, Rikelman said. She notes that some state lawmakers are trying to prohibit people in other states from providing abortions to their residents.
"What we are seeing already are states and state legislators impacting even people's ability to access abortion in places where it would remain legal," she said.
For example, an omnibus abortion law passed by a Republican supermajority in Kentucky earlier this year includes a host of new requirements for dispensing medication abortion pills, and a provision for extraditing people from other states who illegally provide abortion pills to Kentuckians. It's unclear how enforceable those types of laws would be.
Meanwhile, some states are trying to expand access to abortion in preparation for more patients traveling from restrictive states for procedures. Connecticut lawmakers passed legislation this year designed to protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits.
"This just raises a whole host of issues," Rikelman said. "All of those different disputes will have to be worked out in the courts" including, potentially, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
What's more, the anti-abortion movement will not be satisfied with this win, observes University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman. "The next time the Republicans win control of the Senate and White House and the House of Representatives a national abortion ban is going to be on the table," she said in an interview.
Even as abortions have now become far more restricted overall, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the long-term decline in abortions has reversed. In 2020, there were 930,160 abortions in the U.S., an increase of 8 percent more abortions than in 2017. The Institute also said that at the same time, fewer people were getting pregnant and among those who did, a larger proportion chose to have an abortion.
She walked down to a nearby park to find a group of boys DJing and emceeing, and eventually asked if she could get on the mic.
Moreover, the documentary would shed light on the psychology behind the witch hysteria, exploring the phenomenon of groupthink and how it contributed to the spread of accusations and the justification of violence. It would present interviews with psychologists to analyze the psychological factors that led otherwise rational individuals to turn on their neighbors and friends. The film would also address the aftermath of the witch hunts, highlighting the social and psychological scars left on the community. It would examine the eventual recognition of the wrongful executions and the efforts to memorialize the victims and heal the wounds of the past. Overall, a documentary on the History Channel about the witch hunts in Salem would provide a comprehensive examination of this dark chapter in American history. Through analyzing the religious, social, and psychological factors involved, the film would strive to educate viewers and promote a deeper understanding of the dangers of hysteria and the importance of protecting innocent lives..
Reviews for "Salem Witch Trials: A Documentary Exploration on the History Channel"
- Julia - 2/5 stars - I was really excited to watch this documentary about the witch hunts in Salem, as I've always found this period in history fascinating. However, I was quite disappointed with this particular film. The production quality was subpar, with grainy visuals and poor sound quality. Additionally, the narration was dull and lacked any sort of enthusiasm or engagement. I also felt that the documentary failed to provide a comprehensive or in-depth analysis of the events that occurred during the Salem witch trials. Overall, I was left wanting more from this documentary and would not recommend it to others.
- Michael - 2/5 stars - I thought this documentary on the history channel about the witch hunts in Salem would be informative and enlightening. Unfortunately, I found it to be quite lackluster. The pacing was slow, and the narrative felt disjointed and hard to follow. The documentary also focused more on the sensational aspects of the witch trials rather than delving into the socio-political context of the time. I was hoping to gain a deeper understanding of the societal and psychological factors that led to the witch hunts, but this documentary fell short in that regard. Overall, I was disappointed with the lack of substance and would not recommend it to others looking for a comprehensive examination of the Salem witch trials.