There is presently a furor of reporting that the Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade, the 50 year old Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationally in the U. S. (with certain restrictions), spurred by the release of what is purported to be a draft of the forthcoming decision produced by Politico. I have demurred from commenting on the subject because I find it distasteful. but this is a good opportunity to present my views.
I think that abortion is wrong. I think that Roe v. Wade is bad law. I think that as implemented our abortion policy is bad policy. As I see it there are only two coherent policy positions: either abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother or abortion should be funded under Medicaid.
All of the preceding notwithstanding I think that Roe v. Wade should be allowed to stand under stare decisis, the legal principle that courts should follow long-established precedent in their rulings, especially regarding the expansion of rights, and on First Amendment (freedom of religion) grounds.
If Roe v. Wade is, indeed, reversed, I would hope that this would be what is called a “teachable moment” for progressives: don’t rely on the courts to change the society for you. That battle should be fought in the legislature, particularly state legislatures. I doubt that hope will be fulfilled.
I also think that any who believe that reversing Roe v. Wade will alter Democrats’ prospects in November are dreaming. The only people for whom it would be decisive in changing their vote will vote Democratic anyway.
“As I see it there are only two coherent policy positions: either abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother or abortion should be funded under Medicaid.”
I was wondering. Why do you introduce a funding mechanism into the debate?
I view it as a classic (and difficult) case of competing rights. I assume you judge life to begin at conception based upon religious considerations.
A good policy needs to further the interests of the society. Limiting abortions to the middle and upper classes are not in the interest of the society.
Thanks. I didn’t put your paragraph together. Abortion public policy vs Constitutional law or the morality of the procedure.
I have not been an abortion absolutist. While I would never entertain an abortion for myself, my boundaries for others having one has been a trimester cut-off, and exceptions made for rape, incest, and saving a mother’s life. Last night’s leaked SCOTUS decision, if legit, is troubling in that it provides more fodder of separation for a nation already drowning in divisiveness. The saving grace is it shifts abortion policy over to the states, away from the federal government – essentially giving choice back to the people of a given state. Hopefully there will also be a brighter light shone on the absence of morality in taking the life of a full-term baby.
Where would you draw the line in saving the mother’s life? An abortion is much safer than a vaginal delivery or a C section.
If you support funding for abortions under Medicaid would you also support more funding of some sort for those who are now forced to carry to term when they would prefer to not do so? How about child care after they are born?
Steve
“…who are now forced to carry to term when they would prefer to not do so?”
That’s pretty sanitized. Let’s see, would I prefer to live with the consequences of my actions, or would I prefer to assert that my rights are superior to those of another, which justifies my terminating them?
Who is this another you are talking about? Different faiths at different times have had different ideas about that. This is largely a religious question though there are some poor arguments to be made outside of religion. So why are we forcing people to comply with a particular set of religious ideas or any religious ideas? (Though I do appreciate that you think this is about consequences and women should be punished. At least you are being honest about it unlike many of the faithful. Since they both have equal rights, as you seem to suggest then there should be no allowances for rape and incest and i am sure you support criminal charges for anyone having an abortion.)
Ultimately I dont care a whole lot. It wont change things very much. People of means will still get abortions. Poor people get kind of shafted but that is always the case. Just out of self preservation I hope to get a definition of what counts as life saving in case I participate in the care of someone who is pregnant.
Steve
Thank you for the rant, steve, and its incoherence.
Its really not a religious issue. Dave chose to not answer my religious inquiry. Ok. But if you are honestly making your decision on this issue based upon religious beliefs (that life begins at conception) then that is a legitimate position, and compels one to immediately conclude that abortion is the taking of a life.
But for others, one is confronted with the competing rights of a pregnant woman, and a child, whenever that demarcation is determined. If life begins at conception, the notion of a woman’s right to choose is rendered moot. But if later – when? Can she murder the child a month before birth, or 10 seconds before birth? Two days later? A position now staked out by some. I don’t agree that life begins at conception, but I understand the position of those who do.
“A women’s right to choose is pure nonsense.” Its intellectually light; It presumes no rights to another party. It opens up the prospect for unconscionable acts.
Most people default to a practical compromise. Jan laid it out. Basically, if the fetus in not yet viable a woman has a window for control. She must exercise it. Later, the child now has rights, and we are now talking of abortion as murder for lifestyle convenience.
I wouldn’t want to be there, arguing for the latter. .
What’s the window?
Not just what’s the window but how is it to be decided? The maximalist position of the pro-choice advocates is that all decisions are the exclusive right of the mother and enforced by the courts. I’m not sure what the maximalist position of the pro-life advocates is. Complete nationwide ban, also enforced by the courts?
The ruling that is apparently at hand is to place the responsibility for determining that window on the state legislatures.
Basically, my view is that not everything that is wrong should be against the law and there should be some room for pluralism on values that are, ultimately, religiously based. Whether that should be adjudicated nationally or legislated on a state-by-state basis is the difference between both maximalist positions and a more pluralistic approach.
” then that is a legitimate position, and compels one to immediately conclude that abortion is the taking of a life.”
Totally agree. In that case they should not get abortions. They should not force their religious beliefs upon others. I do find it irritating that while this is supposedly considered murder they dont hold the woman responsible. They only go after the providers. They do this becasue they would lose support, suggesting to me that this is not entirely about principle.
“What’s the window?”
Its not just the window but how much risk do we expect the woman to take? On the window side if we use viability we are talking about 22 weeks or so, not 6 or 12 as we are usually seeing. Some states are doing away with rape and incest exclusions but are leaving in saving the mother’s life. Who decides that and how much risk. Someone with severe biventricular failure is a very high risk pregnancy. Real chance of dying but it is not 100% if they go to a good program. What if its just primary pulmonary HTN or moderate RV failure. Those people dont handle the volume changes very well so death is a risk as well as stroke, paralysis. In perspective we also have the worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world. At one point Texas was worse than much of the 3rd world. Again, these decisions are not going to be made based upon the wishes of the woman taking the actual risks but some agent making choices largely based upon their religious preferences.
Steve
The U.S. has a high maternal mortality rate because our standards for measuring that rate are higher, taking more factors into account, than other less developed nations. It reminds me of how we used higher cycle thresholds in our COVID testing practices, one’s that significantly increased those case numbers, which then fed into the frenzied narrative that COVID was busting out all over the place. When that number was lowered, so did the case numbers. It’s only when equal metrics and variables are used that one can accurately analyze anything up for a comparison/contrast study..
Furthermore, when abortion is broken down into months, where the public thinks termination of a pregnancy is acceptable, after the first trimester people go south on supporting abortion. It’s around two-thirds to a third against termination during the second trimester, and radically drops even further when you measure late term abortions being done in the third trimester. Basically abortion is abortion, and color-coating it as a “pro-choice†moment distracts women from thinking about the life they want to terminate. A fetus, after all, is far more than a tissue abstract, especially after the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. That’s why planned parenthood is so opposed to using ultrasound imagery before a woman is to undergo an abortion, as it humanizes what they want to kill and discharge from their bodies. Many change their mind after seeing such an image of their child waiting to be born.
Actually, the more I process the SCOTUS draft, i see it as a timely ruling to review an earlier ruling that, in the ‘70’s, was seen by 85% of legal minds as far afield from being constitutionally sound.
There were issues that made it hard to compare our maternal mortality rate with that of other first world countries. That has been addressed and the report now puts us in line with what other countries do. It does this by ignoring the 25% of maternal deaths that occur after 6 weeks and ignores women over 44. We are still higher than other first world countries. As is our Infant Mortality rate too.
“Basically abortion is abortion”
And outlawing abortion is basically forcing women to carry to term based upon the religious beliefs of other people. They dont get to decide based upon their religious beliefs or non religious beliefs for that matter. AS I note this often entails risk. This risk is being forced upon women to appease the religious beliefs of people not carrying the baby.
Steve
Abortion on demand all the way to term is only legal in a handful of countries. In Germany abortion on demand after 14 weeks is not lawful; in France it is not lawful after 12 weeks. In the majority of countries abortion on demand is prohibited outright. In the United States abortion on demand later than the second trimester is legal in only a handful of states and that has always been the case.
Considering that the prohibitions extend to all religions and to countries like Denmark (12 weeks) and Sweden (18 weeks) that are very secularized, I think that the word “basically” is an exaggeration. Basically, the common belief of human beings is that some restrictions on aborting healthy fetuses by healthy women are warranted.
As I’ve said previously, my own view is that I think that abortion is wrong but should be tolerated perhaps as late as 22 weeks on First Amendment grounds. I think it would not be in the interest of the society for it to ever be normalized.
There’s one additional thing I think you should consider in your formulation, steve. In developed countries there are other ways of mitigating the risks of pregnancy and childbirth than abortion. For most women who choose abortion decision after decision not to mitigate the risks has been made before that point has been reached. Doesn’t that make some difference?
There are trade offs. Once the fetus becomes viable the trade is clear i think. Then there is the safety of an early abortion vs the slightly higher risk of a later one. I think it should be late enough that woman has a real chance to know she is pregnant and make a decision. I think 14 is better than 12.
As to the last sure, we should try to minimize the number of accidental pregnancies recognizing that we will always have some. What we should not do is view making the woman carry to term as a just form of punishment for lascivious behavior. (Lascivious is a favorite Baptist minister word.) That was the prevailing attitude in the churches I attended growing up and visit when I go home.
Steve
†And outlawing abortion is basically forcing women to carry to term based upon the religious beliefs of other people.â€
There are people, like me, who view abortion after the 1st trimester not through a religious lens, but a moral one.
Another interpretation of what is happening in the states right now is that imaging has changed the point of clarity from viability to earlier in the pregnancy.