Worried about Roe v. Wade? Not Me!
There was once a time when Roe-V-Wade activism mattered - like back in 1973 when the sexual revolution invited promiscuity and unwanted pregnancies. I know: I was there. After 45 years of legal abortions, it is absurd that anyone believes Brett Kavanaugh (the president's choice to replace Justice Kennedy) wants to make doctor-assisted abortions illegal. Still, pro-choice jihadists are at war to prevent a 5-4 conservative court, because it is so profitable to defend Roe v. Wade to fire up a little fear and loathing amongst donors and single-issue voters.
As a legal matter, Chief Justice John Roberts will probably adhere to the Anglo-American legal doctrine of precedent (stare decisis): courts stand by things decided. Roberts is a known supporter of the stare decisis doctrine because he believes the substance of US law should be predictable to we the people. The Supreme Court has a bias against seesaw governance (legal today - illegal tomorrow). Only when a law is unworkable - or in extraordinary conditions - does the Supreme Court overrule itself. Such is not the case with Roe v. Wade.
When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalized abortion in 1973, the laws were unworkable because an unwanted pregnancy was an extraordinary condition (burden). Sexually active teens terminated pregnancies by seeking unlicensed abortionists. Welfare mothers could not afford the cost of raising another child. Rape victims bore the shame (and the child) of sexual violation. That was 1973, but extraordinary conditions do not exist today to reinstate an outright ban on abortion – and it is not even a close call.
Abortion rates have fallen. A majority of women today choose some type of contraception. Most males wear a condom to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. 88.2 percent of women aged 15-44 use some form of contraception (source: CDC), including birth control pills, hormonal implants, intrauterine devices or voluntary sterilization. The breakthroughs in contraception science have reduced teen pregnancies alone by 65 percent since 1990. Medical advances now simply and safely stop pregnancies after conception. Morning-after pills and home pregnancy tests can be bought over the counter. Medication abortions that work up until the 10thweek after conception now account for 25% of all abortions. Because of these developments, doctor-performed abortions have fallen by 50% since the 1980s.
So - - where are the extraordinary conditions that warrant overturning Roe v. Wade? Nowhere to be seen, but that does not stop certain religious groups from making a moral argument in favor of an absolute ban on abortion. The pro-life activists may have God on their side, but declining pregnancy rates and fewer abortions have removed the extraordinary conditions needed to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pro-life and pro-choice lawyers know this, so why is America still embroiled in a battle that is actually a matter of private conscience?
The simple answer is the pro-choice and pro-life movements have evolved into profitable enterprises without exit strategies. The pro-choice movement has fought the pro-life movement for so long that (like Capulets and Montagues) the combatants are now institutions that get paid to shout down the other side, when, in fact, most Americans have a nuanced view of abortion. For example, while 73 percent of Americans believe abortion is killing a life or potential life, 78 percent believe a woman should make her own choice without government interference (source: Perry Undem Research). And - - a slight majority (54%) favor curtailing abortion rights, depending on the circumstances (source: Gallup).
After 45 years, 69 percent of Americans don’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned (source: Pew Research). In fact, 84 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans support a woman’s right to have some kind of abortion (source: Gallup). This is the current reality of which every justice is aware. An originalist justice (Neil Gorsuch) is inclined to follow the principles of stare decisis, and a living-constitution justice (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) is inclined to follow current public sentiment. Mind you, this does not mean the 5-4 court will not hear some abortion cases.
The pro-choice crowd must accept the Roberts court might uphold a state's right to stop funding Planned Parenthood or a religious-based organization's right (e.g. Georgetown Jesuits) to enforce their healthcare beliefs. So what? Life will go on in America because there are so many private and economical ways to avoid and terminate pregnancies. Even if a woman is so irresponsible that a baby must be born, putting a child up for adoption is no longer a social stigma.
Take my sound advice: ignore the high anxiety on the extreme right and left. Tell pro-life conservatives to make their moral argument from the pulpit and with civility – not with violence near abortion clinics. Insist that pro-choice progressives respect religious beliefs and promote a woman’s right to responsible health choices. If America has learned anything since 1776, then it is absolute positions beg the question: what are you prepared to do? There were arguments that ultimately ended in armed conflict (a war to end slavery), and those that ended in failed experiments (the 18thamendment prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol). When it comes to abortion, cooler heads must prevail.