Roe Versus Whom?

By John W. Hastrup

Imagine a women’s right to choose callously stripped away by five reactionary men in black robes. Four sane judges and the rest of the country watch in horror. Privacy and personal freedom are quickly curtailed, while back-alley abortions and needless deaths spread like wildfire. Thus the bleak future predicted by many on the left if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

There is only one response to such fear-mongering: relax. The landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, which has allowed almost unrestricted abortion since its inception, may well be reversed. President Bush will likely nominate two or more justices in his upcoming term, and the probable departure of the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor and the liberal John Paul Stevens could completely reshape the Court. But this will not lead to the left’s feared instant reversal of abortion rights. It may make little difference. And importantly, a reversal would lessen the bitterness and counterproductive nature of the current debate, and it would probably help Democrats at the national level.

Overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion. Such an action would only eliminate a woman’s right to an abortion, and the issue itself would be left up to the states. Prior to Roe many states such as California and New York already allowed for abortion on demand and others were quickly following suit.

Now that the procedure is legal it is unlikely that many states would succeed in passing outright bans. According to exit polls, only 16 percent of voters believe that abortion should be “always illegal,” and only 26 percent think it should be “mostly illegal.” Even among those in the latter category a large amount of flexibility exists. Just as pro-choice doesn’t necessarily mean pro-abortion, pro-life doesn’t have to mean categorical opposition to all pregnancy termination. A few of the states in the conservative South and Midwest might succeed in criminalizing the procedure, but abortion is relatively rare there already. Additionally, nothing would likely prevent a woman from crossing state lines to have an abortion. Thus the futility of restrictions might help discourage such action by even conservative states.

When the issue was in the hands of states, there was less animosity surrounding the issue. Prior to 1973, the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” barely existed. Politicians, especially at the national level, hardly even mentioned abortion. Since the decision, however, the issue has become a grotesque distraction on the political scene. With entrenched, almost unchanging opinions held by either side, abortion has become a wedge issue that no longer stimulates debate, only hostility. As a “morals” litmus test, abortion has convinced poor farmers from the Midwest that their political needs are fundamentally different from those of laid-off Detroit factory workers. Both groups need better schools for their children, legislation to ease the hardships imposed by a changing world economy and a strong, government-administered plan for Social Security. But the former votes Republican and the latter Democrat, primarily thanks to the issue of abortion.

Voters select politicians based on their abortion stances even though little can be done about the issue short of a politically unfeasible Constitutional Amendment. Countless hours of energy and debate are spent on something that the Congress will not (and basically cannot) change, while many voters ignore matters that could tangibly benefit their lives.

Such irrationality is an outcry against the fact that the issue has been divorced from the democratic process. Judges, not voters, created the right to have an abortion. Students of history should remember that although Brown v. Board of Education outlawed “separate but equal,” it was the democratically passed Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that really gave the cause for racial equality legitimacy and impact.

In state legislatures lively debate could weigh the social costs and benefits of the procedure in a reasoned (perhaps scientific) manner, and talk of the “right to privacy” or “abortion as murder” might decline a bit. All passions would not die down unless everyone can agree on exactly when life begins, but an improvement would be possible.

The improved tone of the debate could be a huge boon to Democrats. They have complained for years about the “live poor, vote rich” crowd that votes for Republicans based on moral issues such as abortion even though it is contrary to their economic interests. Of the 22 percent of Americans who picked “moral values” as their top campaign issue, eighty percent voted for Bush. Without Roe, Dems could possibly entice some of these voters back into their party.

A defeat of Roe would unquestionably disturb many feminists and steadfast defenders of abortion rights. Pro-life groups, however, who mistakenly see the case’s reversal as a slam dunk for their position would also be sorely disappointed. Ultimately, though the status quo is unlikely to change much, and injecting a bit of democracy into the abortion issue would be healthy for our system and our sanity. It’s time for passionate, but for once, productive debate.

John W. Hastrup ’06, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator living in Dunster House.