It’s no secret that abortion has been one of the most
contentious issues in politics for decades.
This year, a number of new laws, some extremely liberal and some quite
restrictive, proposed or passed in various states have generated even more attention
and strong feelings related to this topic.
Since the basic arguments have been going on for so long without
resolution, it doesn’t seem particularly likely that we can make any real
headway in this time of increased polarization and antagonism. As a long-time sympathizer with the pro-life
cause, I’m not sure if disagreements about strategies and messages within the
movement are a positive sign showing a wealth of ideas or a negative indicator
of a group unlikely to persuade others when it isn’t on the same page
internally. I don’t know what advice I’d
offer to try to bring people together, because for me, reading columns, even by
writers with whom I largely agree, often results in some frustration and
cognitive dissonance. I don’t suppose I
can actually be the only one with my
particular assortment of views, but it often seems that I am on some tiny
island way out of any mainstream.
To start with a major issue, it has long been pointed out
that should the Supreme Court ever overturn Roe
vs Wade, abortion regulation would simply return to being a matter for each
state to decide. This may be a true
description of what would happen barring an unexpectedly bold new take by the
Court, but I would take issue with the idea that this is what should happen. If we are going to operate from the premise,
as seems pretty elementary for pro-lifers, that abortion is wrong because it
ends the life of a young human being, all sorts of compromises and exceptions
and practicalities become problematic, to my mind. Should it be the case that it can be legal in
some states to kill another person because he or she is inconvenient or
imperfect or not fully grown, while other states bar such practices? (If so, could this also apply to toddlers,
people with disabilities, the elderly, and others?) Or, should the Constitution’s protections
protect the life of every person, no matter where in the country he or she
happens to be located – yes, even inside a womb? I take the latter, admittedly minority, view
and think such an interpretation of the Constitution, either made by the Court
or enacted through the amendment process should really be the goal.
The bills restricting abortion early in pregnancy that have
recently been passed in several states have inspired debate and some
disagreement even among those who support the ultimate aims of the legislation. Some believe that time and energy might
better be spent on other efforts because lower-level courts can be expected to
strike the legislation down as violating current Supreme Court rulings, and the
Court itself may choose not to consider appeals. Thus, the process of enacting and defending
the laws may turn out to lead nowhere, which could be especially unfortunate as
some feel that these laws may inspire a backlash and turn away some persuadable
moderate citizens. If the Supreme Court
does eventually take up related cases, there is even the disastrous possibility
that they could confirm or expand the holdings of Roe and make the prospects of nurturing a culture of life bleaker
than ever. I don’t take issue in general
with trying to bring the issue before the Court now, even if there are
risks. However, I do have some questions
about passing legislation, like the recent “heartbeat” and other laws, that
seem to clearly be incompatible with currently standing rulings of the Supreme
Court. This represents a change from the
typical recent approach in which late-term restrictions or requirements related
to physician licensing, informed consent, etc. would be used as a vehicle
intended to mount a court challenge -- rules that can be logically defended as
permissible within the existing legal framework because they do not cause an
“undue burden.”
David French, who has
endorsed the recent efforts in Georgia, Alabama, and other states, has explained
an underlying argument regarding the ability of states to offer greater
protections of rights than required by the federal Constitution, providing
justification for individual states to expand their definition of “personhood”
to include unborn children and thus grant them far greater rights to life. I am somewhat reassured by the existence of
this line of reasoning, but we will have to see what transpires as related
cases make their way through the court system.
In his column, Mr. French also suggests that even a disappointing
outcome for pro-lifers could reduce some of the contentiousness and intense focus
on judicial appointments in our federal elections. He proposes that the stakes would be lower if
only “marginal” issues like clinic regulations and such are on the table and
that disillusioned voters especially concerned with these issues will no longer
give support to politicians or judges in hopes of change in the country’s
abortion jurisprudence. Since it seems
we’ve already long experienced the scenario in which the struggle has focused
on small gains, with plenty of vehement disagreement, I’m not convinced things
would be likely to cool off no matter what might happen in the courts. Also, while I would certainly be disappointed
(though not actually surprised, skeptic that I am) if some of the
Republican-appointed Justices once again upheld Roe vs Wade, I don’t know that it would be fair to say that the
public had been duped or lied to in this regard. When we hear these judges say in their
confirmation hearings, as they seemingly must to move forward, that Roe is “settled law” and that they
believe in the importance of precedent, how can we actually expect them to vote to overturn it? I’d say we really have to cross our fingers
and hope, instead.
Another cause for debate has regarded the exceptions, or
lack thereof, for cases involving rape in the recently passed laws. Many feel that omitting such exceptions is a
strategic mistake that will lead to more opposition and paint pro-lifers as
extremists. I can understand this
argument from a political standpoint, and I can support the idea that changes
to the legal regime don’t have to be perfect to be worth making. Considering public opinion, it may well be
the case that governments will have to include legal exceptions in these situations, but I think that it would
still be important to point out that this is a political concession and a
compromise of principles, as there is no logical justification for a moral exception. In this regard, I disagree with those on the
pro-life side who actually argue for the acceptability of abortion in these cases. I found Chris Christie’s contention in a 2016
presidential primary debate that this is a type of “self-defense” to be
particularly cringe-worthy. I especially
don’t understand why these exceptions have been deemed necessary in the various
later-term bans that have been proposed in recent years. Is a child to be permanently denied legal
protection as punishment for his father’s crimes, or does he achieve
“personhood” later than everyone else – perhaps not until birth or even later? Locking up the perpetrators and throwing away
the key is perfectly fine with me, but the unborn child is as much an innocent
young human being as in any other case.
It is fair to say that those pointing out that recent
legislative abortion restrictions would not impose penalties on women who
obtained these procedures are merely stating the facts and combating
misinformation. However, this brings up
fundamental questions that merit more attention. I have for some time now been rather
perplexed that so many opponents of abortion don’t seem to believe (or at least
aren’t willing to even suggest) that the women who obtain these procedures bear
any of the responsibility or should face any
consequences – to the point that some have even worried that anti-abortion
discussions or protests may make women who’ve had them feel bad/worse/guilty. Good grief.
I could understand if this stance were taken merely for reasons of
public relations and political reality, but this does not seem to be the
case. I find myself rather put off by commentary
that portrays women as helpless, desperate victims rather than as people
accountable for their own decisions, and I am not swayed by justifications that
seem more suited to the other side of the issue and that would clearly not be sufficient
in other situations. Certainly, the abortionist,
along with any partner/family/friends who may finance or facilitate the
abortion, is also performing an immoral act, but in a free society, the
pregnant woman is the one making the ultimate choice to end the life of her
unborn child. I fear that, without
acknowledging this reality, any abortion restrictions that might be implemented
in the future would be mainly symbolic or would merely shift these procedures
from quasi-medical facilities to even shadier locations or homes. If that would be the case, perhaps pro-lifers
might as well just continue their admirable efforts to reduce abortion through
education and by supporting pregnant women and new mothers with crisis
pregnancy centers and other programs.
Maybe battles over the law might not be of such importance – except that
the other side of the issue, unsatisfied with the already ridiculously liberal
abortion regime in the U.S., is now pushing for even more extreme policies such
as completely unrestricted access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy,
unlimited public funding of the procedure, and elimination of conscience
protections for medical personnel.
With so many hotly-contested issues at play, abortion policy
seems likely to remain in the news for some time to come. We’ll have to wait and see what results come
about from the actions of the different branches of our state and federal
governments. I certainly hope that our
legal environment will move in a significantly pro-life direction someday, but,
after all this time, I’m not holding my breath.
