The possible reversal of Roe v. Wade worries many people. I don’t expect to ever see it happen, but I could be wrong. The question for debate here is what would the consequences of a reversal really be?
I believe, if the law were reversed, the old abortion statutes would not come back to life. Abortion would still be legal in all states. However, states would be free to pass new abortion statutes. I think liberal states like New York, New Jersey, and California would not pass any new restrictions at all. Note that they have not tried to restrict abortion within the limits permissible by Roe v. Wade.
More conservative states certainly would restrict abortion, but I’d be surprised if any of them outlawed it entirely. By now, too many women in every state have had abortions, or their sisters, daughters, friends or cousins have had abortions.
Judicially, the decision would send a salutory message that judges ought to interpret the law, rather than make law (I like Roe v. Wade, as a law, but not as a judicial decision.)
Politically, the reversal of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for the Republican Party. Today, they can appeal to the strict anti-abortion minority in principle, while pointing out to the rest of us that in practice they don’t have the power to ban abortions. Without Roe v. Wade, the Republicans would have to take a real stand. Whichever way they went, they’d alientate a lot of their voters.
I think you’d see the religious right force Congress into a federal law banning it everywhere. Congress would do it in a second. The Senate would be a battle. Talk about a filibuster!
My personal view would be to allow it to be decided state by state. It is funny that my party is a states rights advocate until they want something…
I think abortion would become a lot more political issue. Right now it’s really important to some people, , but for the majority of the population, there’s the attitude “For better or worse, abortion is legal” so, while people identify themselves as pro-choice or pro-life, I don’t think it makes a big difference in their voting patterns.
If Roe gets reversed, though, and outlawing abortion is left up to the states, then abortion becomes a major issue on the state level. So the importance of the issue, and the accompanying activism and rhetoric, shoots up tenfold.
Personally, judicial decisions about what rights exist are ok with me. That’s what the court is there for. for example, the “constitutional right to privacy” is not spelled out in any Article or Amendment, but is specified in a Supreme Court decision as being implied (apologies for not having a cite handy, but I have read this decision with my own eyes.)
If Roe v. Wade is reversed, abortion rights will revert to the states, several of whom will outlaw it in a heartbeat. Women who find themselves pregnant and wanting to terminate the pregnancy will have to figure out a way to get to a state where it is legal (and which has a doctor willing to perform the procedure) and pay for it there, or make do with whatever illegal means available to her.
If she’s close to a relevant state line, there’s not much problem, unless congress passes a law declaring it illegal to cross state lines to receive an abortion, which I can not divine whether or not they’d do. Of course, the state in question might end up being two or three states away, which gets into some financial consideration.
Considering that poverty is a big factor in deciding to end a pregnancy, you’d see a lot of bloody coat hangers.
“then abortion becomes a major issue on the state level.”
IIRC Scalia , in one of his dissents, argued that this would be a good thing because opinion is less evenly divided at the state level than at the national level. In other words it wouldn’t be controversial in liberal states where large majorities would be pro-choice and it wouldn’t be controversial in conservative states where large majorities would be pro-life. Therefore the issue would become less contentious not more. I am not sure his argument is correct but it seems plausible enough.
I am pro-choice and wouldn’t be pleased if abortion becomes illegal in some states. However as a procedural matter I think it should up to elected legislatures and not SC judges to decide.
Then why hasn’t this (i.e., restrictions) already occurred more extensively? Roe v. Wade already affords states the right to restrict abortions under certain circumstances.
When Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, pro-choice groups were waging a largely successful battle in the various state legislatures to remove the ban on abortion. In yanking the issue away from the ordinary political process, I think the Supreme Court largely created the modern pro-life movement – a decision made in far-off Washington DC by unelected judges riles more feathers than one made locally by well-known elected officials. Had the court decided that the constitution was simply silent on the question of abortion, we may have ended up in about the same place we are today, only with considerably less acrimony and rancor.
And I forgot to addres the OP: what I’m basically saying is that, after the initial round of joyous applause/defiant indignation (depending on your view of abortion), a reversal of Roe would shift the decision to the ordinary political process, which would entail less acrimony, not more.
And not just for the reasons CyberPundit cites. I think a big part of the acrimony over this debate is the fact that the federal courts have made it a constitutional issue. There is a sense of powerlessness that comes with that, particularly on the pro-life side, and of course the need for compromise goes completely out the window. Thus, the vitriol on both sides just boils over.
If the matter were one for the state legislatures, both sides would have to reach compromises. Calling your opponent a “baby killer” or a “coat-hanger fascist” is hardly conducive to such compromises. Being forced to hammer out political solutions would necessitate a toning down of the abortion rhetoric – a good thing IMO.
Dewey, do you have an opinion as to what Roe v. Wade permits regarding the restriction of abortions? It seems clear that viability is a bright line in the opinion. The “passage of time” is a spectrum that makes the state’s interest in the rights of the unborn more compelling, it seems to me they are saying. Is there anything inconsistent with the decision and the restriction of late-term abortions, just as an example?
What’s your overall opinion of this decision? I’d be very interested in your thoughts.
I would go a lot further. Roe v Wade did extensive damage to the feminist movement. In fact, it was effectively shut down for a couple of decades with the backlash, and most likely was the big hinderance of the passing of the Equal Rights Amendment amonmg others. When Republicans took over eventually ‘responsibility’ issues of the feminist movement were enacted, like increasing sentences for sexual assaults as part of being ‘tough on crime’, Family Leave acts, and registering and chasing deadbeat dads so they take responsibility of the children they made.
An example of a restriction short of viability is currently being debated in the Texas State Legisl.
The bill, expected to pass the Senate (already passing the house…or vice versa) requires a 24 hour waiting period before any woman can get an abortion. During that 24 hours, she is required to listen to a discussion of alternatives, hear about the down side, and I BELIEVE look at a picture of an aborted fetus.
That is pretty strong restrictions!
Also, think of the parental notification requirement for minors.
I have also heard of, but don’t know if they have been enacted, of a SPOUSAL notification requirement ( that is ONE hot potato).
I think a 90’s S Ct. ruling established that the states could go pretty far with restrictions as long as it didn’t undermine the basic trapping of Roe. I am a bit rusty on the debate, so I hope someone knows the case(s) I am talking about.
I don’t think that Roe v. Wade would be reversed completely but probably left up the states to be reversed or regulated. The only problem with that is then the federal government with its present administration could withhold funds from those states that did not reverse it.
I think a lot of states would outlaw abortion. I think this would result in a couple of things:
A reduction in the number of abortions overall, particularly amongst the poor, who could not afford to travel to go to a state or country where abortion was legal. (A good thing)
A federal law restricting interstate travel for the purpose of abortion (I don’t believe this will affect the ability for a woman to travel out of the country), meaning the middle class and weathly will travel internationally to get theirs (a neutral thing - I’m pro-choice, but I’d hate to see only the wealthy - who could afford the child - have access).
An increase in the number of unsafe abortions performed (a bad thing)
An increase in the number of babies born out of wedlock (speaking in population terms, not individual terms, a bad thing.)
An increase in the amount of money necessary to spend on children in poverty (a bad thing).
An increase in the amount of money needed by the schools (as their per pupil costs will remain stable- but their will be more students) or a decrease in the amount of money spent per pupil (a bad thing).
An increase in the number of children available for adoption (has bad and good points). However, I believe most women will keep their child (you get pretty attached after nine months - even if you considered abortion in the first three).
Unless the states allow abortion for fetal defects (some probably will as a compromise, more conservative states won’t), more children born with birth defects. (Believing that there is nothing wrong with someone with defects, I can’t say this is a bad thing for the child. I can’t imagine wishing a child had never been born just because they had Down’s. I can’t however, go all the way to saying this is a good thing…parents of special needs kids need to be special people - it puts a lot of strain on a family - and I can’t blame anyone who chooses not to pursue that path. Not only that, but special needs kids generally use a lot of the public resources, and those resources are slim and apparently getting slimmer).
Bob Cos: I’ve gotten out of the “predict what is or isn’t permissible under Roe” business" – the only thing messier are the court’s church/state opinions.
As for my opinion of Roe itself – I think the constitution is silent on the issue of abortion and that it was a mistake to constitutionalize the issue. But then again, I feel the same way about birth control and the Griswold decision which led to Roe, so I’m not the best guy to ask.
I think the eventual backlash from that would score a fatal blow to the Republicans. Seeing desperate pregnant women detained for questioning or arrested as they try to cross state lines doesn’t look good.
Since Roe vs Wade is the standard, abortion rights people already mostly have their way, so they don’t need to be as outspoken as pro-lifers. However, if that were reversed the situation would change.
If there is any such increase, then we can expect it be minimal, based on the testimonies of both pro-choice and pro-life authorities. After all, the overwhelming majority of illegal abortions were not performed by back alley butchers – and while they were arguably unsafe, the same risks are involved in legal abortions as well.
And yes, I am getting rather tired of posting links to this article, and others like it. Sadly, this misconception simply refuses to die – namely, the myth that legal abortions are somehow dramatically more safe than illegal ones, and that widespread deaths were silently being caused by back alley abortions.
I could not possibly disagree more. It would transform every federal, state, and local election into a referendum on abortion, to be repeated incessantly every time there is another election. The acrimony would never end.
Please explain how you reach this conclusion. Are you saying that having children born out of wedlock, in general, is a bad thing (presumably on the grounds that it’s not in the best interests of the children), but for an individual, having or causing to have a child out of wedlock is somehow not a bad thing? How does that work, unless you are willing to completely disregard any sense of personal responsibility?
