Sunday, January 22, 2006 was the 33rd anniversary of the handing down of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade. The decision struck down all state prohibitions on abortions, recognized a constitutional right to privacy and made abortion legal in the United States.
To mark the occasion, thousands of abortion opponents marched in protest in San Francisco, California, while abortion rights supporters along the march route held wire hangers and shouted "Bigots go home!"
The dueling protests reflected the growing tension over the makeup of the Supreme Court, which is about to change with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the pending confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito.
Many abortion opponents have said they are encouraged by President Bush's choice of Judge Alito who, during his confirmation hearings, refused to agree that Roe vs. Wade is "settled law." Abortion rights activists, on the other hand, are upset by the expected confirmation of Judge Alito, who will replace Justice O'Connor, who was often the high court's "swing" vote.
Both abortion opponents and supporters of abortion rights agree that the recent and upcoming changes to the ideological complexion of the Supreme Court are likely to have a significant effect upon the interpretation of Roe vs. Wade.
However, it should be noted that a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade would not outlaw abortion in the United States, but would rather send the issue back to the states. Several legal experts have said that the effects of a reversal of Roe vs. Wade would probably be minimal, depending upon the wording of such a hypothetical Supreme Court ruling.
In the unlikely event of the high court ruling that fetuses are people, entitled to their own rights under the U.S. Constitution, a complete ban on abortion might be possible. At least a dozen states already have criminal laws banning abortion. Although those laws cannot be enforced while Roe vs. Wade is still binding, in theory they could take effect immediately upon a reversal that conferred the rights of personhood upon fetuses.
The more probable outcome, if the high court reversed Roe vs. Wade, would be a mixture of abortion laws that would vary from state to state. Some states would likely continue to guarantee full abortion rights, while other states might impose a complete ban. However, realistically speaking, most will probably find some sort of "middle ground" in which abortion would remain legal, but restricted by factors such as the patient's age, pregnancy trimester, medical concerns and circumstances of conception.
Article comments
1 - Dawn
I was unable to ascertain your view, but I can't argue with your excellent and skilled logic.
2 - Anonymous on this thread
Had Roe v. Wade never happened in 73, abortion was well on its way to being legalized on the state level...and today we'd have close to the same level of legal abortion...but with a big difference....the GOP would probably never have come into its current prominence without its main wedge issue. As a liberal who supports legal abortion, I have also come to the conclusion that Roe v. Wade is a giant noose around the neck of Democrats. It's enabled the GOP to con the masses with its Terri Schaivo-like pseudo "culture of life" while distracting them from the economic devastation of their other policies.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for the GOP. Most states would step right in to relegalize it...and when the first instance of a woman dying of a botched abortion comes in, there'd be an outcry to relegalize it where it had been outlawed.
Roe v. Wade created a mechanism for con-artist politicians to redefine many elections around "social issues" rather than economic ones. Don't count on Bush's goons in the Supreme Court to overturn the GOP's greatest political cash cow...there's just to much political capital for milking this issue for what all it's worth. The "culture of life" con-job will continue into perpetuity...and Democrats will keep on losing many elections because of it.
3 - Temple Stark
It is a pleasure entering into a conversation with you Margaret because above all I know you to be honest and one who will not fake stupidity nor destort or belittle views you disagree with.
This was more a presentation of the abortion situation as it sits with many Americans, rather than one seeking to jam a "pursuasive" argument down someone's throat either in the post itself or following comments.
As a result, it was more interesting and actually gives reason to engage you in discussion.
... which I can't do right now as I'm going to take pics at a high school girls basketball game. ....
4 - RedTard
"economic devastation of their other policies"
Are you talking about the capitalist free market that has made us the wealthiest nation on earth? While I don't find their actions all that helpful I'm glad at least they pay lip service to freedom from government oppression.
You still can't get it. Republicans are in power because the average American does not hold liberal views. You think it must be a trick because your mind cannot grasp the concept that the majority does not agree with you.
The wedge issues are all on your side. The entire Democratic party is nothing but a gang of special interest groups with little in common.
5 - Anonymous on this thread
I'm glad at least they pay lip service to freedom from government oppression.
In a democracy, we need more than lip service. Republican government has given us an administration that spys on Americans, that via the patriot act goes through your records, it watches your internet activity, it monitors your phone calls. Yes, lip service indeed.
The Democratic party is dead. When a Democrat comes around that motivates the base, the party neuters him very quickly. It promotes people like Hillary Clinton who panders to Republicans. The Democratic party is dead and there is no counter to the Republicans, which is why your side need only give lip service.
6 - A Rational Being
I'll recognize fetal personhood the next time I see a fetus that can look me in the eye, hold a meaningful conversation, make itself a sandwich and wipe its own ass.
Dave
7 - Steve S
Dave, you libertarian you. You never cease to amaze me. Sometimes good, sometimes not but always amaze.
8 - Dave Nalle
Steve, the scientific definition of 'personhood' is the ability to interract with other people and provide for your own survival. Fetuses don't meet that standard.
Dave
9 - JR
Margaret Romao Toigo: The right to life is self-evident...
More like "self-asserting". Only humans could even consider such an idea, let alone pretend to be bound by it. The non-life universe shows no particular respect for life. And all animal life subsists on the regular ending of other life. Even in the human arena, the assertion of rights almost invariably leads to the killing of humans. "Persons", no less.
Seems to me the "right to life" is self-evidently self-contradictory.
These truths cannot be disputed.
Well...
10 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Thank you, Dawn. I was hoping that my personal opinions would seem ambiguous.
While I understand the importance of speaking one's mind clearly so that everyone can know where one stands on a particular issue, I have often found that that approach ultimately closes more minds than it opens -- especially when dealing with "hot button" issues such as abortion.
Personally, I think abortion is an abomination, a most vile form of self-mutilation and the worst possible "choice." However, I know that if it were outlawed, it would become even more horrid than it already is because that is the inevitable and tragic result of interdictive social engineering.
Those good folks whose hearts truly bleed for the unborn have the right idea, but the wrong methodology. They have fallen for one of the oldest cons: that proposed simple solutions to complex problems will work.
Their focus upon overturning Roe vs. Wade distracts them from endeavoring to understand why so many women choose abortion in the first place, to determine what makes it so "convenient" in a society that purports to value its children as much as ours supposedly does.
11 - Dawn
Margaret,
I think it's amazing that someone can hold such a strong view, yet divorce themselves of the emotion of that view, and look at the rational and come up with the most obvious(albeit complex) solution.
Not to harp on the point, but you really are an exceptionally skilled writer and I appreciate your being honest about your opinions. I imagine in most (even pro-Choice) minds we are all in agreement, abortion is an abomination born of necessity. (sorry about the poor choice of words)
Prevention is the key, but evidently that key (as you said) is so frought with complexities that it boggles the religiously fanatical mind.
12 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Anonymous on this thread writes, "The overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster for the GOP. Most states would step right in to relegalize it...and when the first instance of a woman dying of a botched abortion comes in, there'd be an outcry to relegalize it where it had been outlawed."
I have heard this theory before and I believe that is has a lot of merit, especially when I contemplate the many Republican politicians who have benefited from the campaign strategy of speaking out against Roe vs. Wade. For 33 years, it has been the most effective way to reach that large and powerful voting bloc known as the "religious right."
But let's not kid ourselves here, abortion is but one "wedge" issue, there are many others and someday those "religious right" folks are going to blow wise to having been used.
Remember, they are not just voters, they're hard-working, highly-motivated activists who have invested considerable time, energy and money into their causes and they haven't really gotten much of a return outside of a few token measures, many of which were -- if they were enacted at all -- almost immediately overturned by the courts.
If one understands the dynamics of the psychological defense mechanism known as "projection," it should be no great wonder why the religious right often works tirelessly at demonizing the ACLU. It is far easier to blame the organization that brings the suits against unconstitutional legislation than it is to face the fact that they've been had by the very politicians they worked so hard to see elected.
RedTard, I submit that the average American doesn't know the difference between liberal and conservative views and likely cannot readily distinguish Democrats from Republicans without those red and blue diagrams the TV news people employ for the very same reason.
Dave Nalle writes, "the scientific definition of 'personhood' is the ability to interact with other people and provide for your own survival. Fetuses don't meet that standard."
Neither do infants, who are, without question, recognized as persons, entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution.
If sentience and personhood were one and the same, we'd have no problems deciding what to do about human creatures whose EEGs have gone "flat line."
My take is that a fetus, no matter how precious it might be to its prospective parent(s), cannot be a person while it is still a living part of a woman's body and not yet a separate physical entity.
Conception is the creation of a living thing and birth is the process by which that living thing becomes a human being, a person entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution.
13 - Margaret Romao Toigo
JR writes, "Only humans could even consider such an idea [that the right to life is self-evident], let alone pretend to be bound by it."
Man's eternal inhumanity to man and the natural cycle of life and death aside, that we are able to consider such a thing as a right to life and hold the belief that it is self-evident is one of the qualities that separates us from beasts, even if beasts are ultimately what we are underneath it all.
Temple, thank you. Your kind recognition is most heartening at a time when I occasionally find myself wondering about the effectiveness of the subtle approach in the midst of all the intellectual dishonesty, deliberate obtuseness and uninhibited spleen venting that is far too often successfully passed off as meaningful discourse.
Dawn, "abortion is an abomination born of necessity" is a most astute choice of words. It is a sadly accurate assessment.
I think we need to put aside the emotions that interfere with our logic and work toward trying to better understand why such a grave necessity still exists in the 21st century.
Certainly, prevention has a large role to play and it is encouraging to note that, in the 33 years since Roe vs. Wade, much progress has been made in the area of contraception.
However, what I am trying to get at, and haven't yet found an economy of words to describe, is how those inscrutable complexities that boggle religiously -- and otherwise -- fanatical minds have helped to create a society in which "young, single and pregnant" is a most undesirable state of being.
14 - robert scatigna
thou shall not judge so that they should not be judged.he who is without sin cast the first stone.God's gift:freedom to choose!free will!!!he will be the judge,and ONLY him!!!didn't anyone listen to Jesus??