peripateticblogger.com

Re-thinking Roe v Wade

Posted in Politics and Justice by EloiSVM42 on July 11, 2018

Frankly, I’m sick to death of hearing about Roe v Wade. (Of course, I am only a man, and I don’t have a vagina at risk.) Abortion is the craziest, bloodiest most irrational battle in the culture wars, and has been raging ever more viciously since the Supreme Court handed down the decision in 1973. Skirmishes are unceasing, and every one incites more outrage on both sides.

For the record, I am a firm believer in abortions being available to those who choose to have them. More precisely, I believe people should have peace and privacy when making such a difficult decision.  Since Row was decided on privacy grounds, I think it was rightly decided, but the situation is complicated.

To me, this is a no brainer. I’m old enough to have seen what it was like before abortions became legally available nationally, and some of the results were tragic: unwanted children; forced marriages (which have doubtless contributed to a higher divorce rate); unaffordable children, which can throw people into poverty and bind them there; deformed and mentally deficient children, which are in the best of circumstances an enormous drain on social resources and capable of overwhelming families; and risky, dangerous, sometimes fatal illegal abortions in unsafe circumstances.

The counter arguments are based, in my view, on absolutist interpretations of an antiquated text, and a mean-spirited desire to punish those who commit the unpardonable sins of being pregnant, poor and colored. I would say to those holding such opinions, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Just don’t deny them to those who do.

Full disclosure: I’ve been the sperm contributor in a few abortions myself, though none of them illegal. Also, having lived in the 60s and early 70s in Oklahoma and Indiana – two determinedly hidebound states – while in college, and then living in New York, NY where abortions were legal before 1973, I hosted friends at my place during their trips there to have an abortion in a safe hospital.

The Supreme Court is, despite the myth, at heart political. To remain relevant, it must move with the times to accommodate changes in the public will, and deal with issues unimagined by the Constitution’s authors. Generally, though not always, the Court moves as there is enough public sentiment regarding its decisions to approve, or at least accept, with perhaps some grumbling, but no rebellion.

However, Roe seems to have been decided when public sentiment was still extremely split, and much of the country simply wasn’t willing to live with the Supremes’ decision. Maybe, just maybe, the issue should have been left to percolate a little longer, though to be fair to the Supremes, at the time, majority opinion already favored abortion being available.

So, what might happen if Roe were overturned? I assume the Supremes would return the abortion question to the individual states, and not outlaw them entirely. The reaction to a national ban would be untenable.

With abortion left to the states to deal with, at first at least, almost half – 22 of them – will outlaw abortions entirely, or put so many restraints on them to render them unobtainable. So, the number of states on either side of the issue will be split, but not popular opinion. A significant majority of voters will still prefer abortion to be legal, and I would expect this majority to increase in the face of this new reality.

In states where abortions are prohibited, the demand for abortions will not cease. There will be anguish and scrambling around to find alternative places or methods to have them. There will be illegal abortions and there will be predictably tragic events.

There will also be greatly increased voter activation and resentment within both sets of states. It’s been a long time since Rowe v Wade became law. Perhaps many women have become complacent about abortions being nationally available, despite the obvious chipping away at them from the right. This might galvanize more women them into more aggressive action against anti-abortion legislators.

Many politicians have been skating on abortion, saying they oppose them to appease their conservative voters, but knowing that they are safe behind the Court’s decision not to have to vote on the issue. Once the decision is overturned, they may find themselves facing serious new opposition.  

Medical technology has advanced since 1973. There is better contraception and abortion pills. Like everything else, so called day after pills could be available through Amazon, which offers free delivery within two days with a Prime membership. Then, there’s always Canada’s pharmaceutical houses. They’re cheaper anyway. In any case, I see the market, and the black market, for these products skyrocketing.

Outlawing abortions will take some pressure off of organizations like Planned Parenthood. Now they will be able to provide other medical services to women without being hounded by crazies.

I see abortion clinics being set up in states where they are allowed right on the borders with states where they are not, making it easier in many cases for people in non-abortion states to get them relatively conveniently. (Of course, this won’t work with non-abortion states all of whose borders abut other non-abortion states.)

I can also see crowd sourcing sites – something else new since 1973 – gathering funds to help women in non-abortion states with the expenses required to travel to pro-abortion states to have one.

But mostly, I can see a lot of highly pissed off and motivated women making a lot of legislators’ lives a misery until the issue is addressed through meaningful legislative action at the national level, overriding the Court, instead of the other way around.

One final comment re: Roe v. Wade. The Wade in this case was a truly despicable piece of filth named Henry Wade, who was at the time a District Attorney of Dallas County, TX.  Wade, a vile racist, which is redundant as I think about it, dragged innocent blacks off the streets, seemingly at random, and tried them before often equally racist juries, or at least juries indifferent to justice in the case of blacks, and get them convicted of crimes they didn’t commit,

At least 15 such Wade’s convictions have been overturned with the advent of DNA evidence, and it is certain that other innocents suffered their entire sentences in prison. Some who were innocent of their crime likely were executed. I’m not a fan of anything vaguely related to Henry Wade.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.