Political motives for 2004 elections will keep Roe
In the next week, a great deal of attention will be paid to the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And much of the discussion of the case will focus on the possible abandonment of the ruling in the coming years.
Are the days of Roe numbered? My answer depends, ultimately, on political affairs playing out as they ought to, and also on a couple of additional assumptions. But, in the end, my view is that Roe is safe. Playing out Roe's demise shows why.
Here is the setup: A pro-choice justice has just left the Supreme Court. At this stage, the president could either satiate his conservative base and appoint an archconservative to the court, or he could decline to do so. Suppose, for the moment, that he appoints a justice in the style of Antonin Scalia and that after a pitched battle, this appointee is confirmed. A few months after this justice's confirmation, probably by the middle of 2004, Roe would be overturned, and the issue becomes a matter for the states.
As soon as this reversal is printed, state laws prohibiting abortion that are still on the books in a handful of states, including Wisconsin, would instantly become enforceable. Citizen groups in each of these states would then clamor for the repeal of these laws, with anti-abortion activists standing in opposition. Mirror images of these fights would take place in states where prohibitions are not in place, with anti-abortion groups asking for a change in law and pro-choice groups playing defense.
It is important to note that the resulting national debate would not be held in the rarified air of some Sunday morning talk show. Rather, the debate will play out in town meetings and state houses, and on editorial pages and evening news broadcasts. And the debate will dominate the headlines, the political landscape and most important of all, the 2004 elections.
This intensity of focus and concentration is important. Without doubt, several powerful leaders on the anti-abortion side, including some in government, will overreach. They will declare that they are on some sort of moral crusade against abortion in particular, but also against any sort of sexual activity that deviates from the exceedingly narrow marital, monogamous and heterosexual definition to which they adhere for some reason. This sort of paternalistic moralizing will annoy most, infuriate some and move a large number of electoral spectators off the couch. The result for the GOP will be devastating.
The gender gap, which has been narrowed to some extent in recent years, will widen and become an institutional feature of American politics for years and decades to come. Suburban independents will flee, seeing the president's claims of compassionate conservatism as cover for something more sinister--as evidenced further by the incessant reliance on trickle-down tax cuts and the Lott affair, among other things.
The Senate will move back to Democratic control, and the House may follow suit in the same cycle or the next. And Bush, who probably will need a second term to have any breath of a chance to see the wars that he is going to instigate in the next year won on his watch, or to have any shot at remaking the tax code into a completely airtight shield for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, will be left to line up some lucrative speaking engagements for 2005.
The smart play, politically speaking, is to let this sleeping dog lie. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, seven out of eight counties in the United States have no abortion provider. There is no federal funding for abortion and, importantly, no federal mandate that requires prescription plans to provide for birth control coverage. There are waiting periods and parental-consent requirements in place. As a final fail-safe, there are anti-abortion activists and \crisis pregnancy centers"" that deter women from abortion. In short, for the vast majority of women, Roe exists in name only.
By the circumstances of the world in which they live, millions of women in this nation are carrying unplanned and unwanted pregnancies to term. For Bush and fellow conservatives in government, this is a good result--not their ideal, by any stretch, but a half-loaf is better than none. In the end, and for the preservation of their own political futures, they will choose not to get too cute, or too greedy, by going for the rest of the loaf.
Government's blind eye regarding Roe v. Wade will lead to its demise
Last year, for the 29th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, President Bush proclaimed ""National Sanctity of Life Day."" In a speech to a rally opposing the right to choose, he said, ""Our nation should set a great goal, that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law."" As the 30th anniversary of the decision approaches, we now face a balance of power that places the Bush administration one step closer to that goal.
With control of Congress and the White House, Republicans seem poised to make their move on issues of reproductive rights, yet what few recognize is that the Bush administration been attacking the rights of women for two years.
You have to give Bush credit; he hasn't minced words regarding his hatred for the right to choose. What is detestable is the manner in which he has chosen to take action. Rather than fostering open debate, building consensus or seeking a public mandate, the Bush administration has avoided phrases like ""Roe v. Wade"" and ""reproductive rights"" to side-step public critique.
Here is re-cap of some efforts to decrease the scope of reproductive rights that went unnoticed by many:
- As of last November, fetuses qualify for federally funded health care, as individuals, rather than as part of broader care for the pregnant woman. Other plans to expand access to prenatal care, which would have avoided controversy, went ignored. The issue wasn't prenatal care, but the status of the fetus.
- In October, the advisory committee dealing with the safety of human test subjects in research saw embryos added to its list. While no specific rights were afforded these clumps of cells, the move was seen as another effort to bring the unborn under federal protection.
- Internationally, at a U.N. population conference in Bangkok, the U.S. delegation objected to not only the advocacy of condom use by teenagers in poor countries to prevent the spread of HIV, but also the terms ""reproductive health service' and ""reproductive rights' because they might encompass abortion.
Even more disturbing are subtle things like changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site, where statements saying condom education did not increase or hasten sexual activity disappeared. The National Cancer Institute Web site also saw changes. Formerly saying there is no link between breast cancer and abortion, the site now says the link is ""inconclusive.""
Some people fear that Roe v. Wade may not see its 31st anniversary. The real question ought to be whether that appearance will be in anything other than name alone. The gravest danger for women's reproductive rights lies not in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but its effective negation through legislation, judicial appointments, executive orders and the denial of funding to family-planning programs.
Right now the American public is too busy dealing with a struggling economy, the ever-increasing prospect of war with Iraq and an ongoing war with terror to be vigilant. Our disinterest, whether a product of our situation or our nature, is allowing our rights to bleed to death, one paper-cut at a time.
It is often said, ""the devil is in the details."" In the case of reproductive rights it rings unsettlingly true. Roe v. Wade is being gutted, yet because the ruling is still on the books, many feel that is OK to focus on other things. The logic claims that as long as Roe v. Wade exists, we are safe. What many are not seeing is that the authority of that ruling is being chipped away.
Pro-life advocates like to bring up the fact that Norma McCorvey, the ""Jane Roe"" of Roe v. Wade, today stands opposed to abortion. The fact that the planter no longer wants the fruits that her seeds bore does not deny their importance or value. Roe v. Wade was not a negation of being pro-life in one's decision making, rather, it was an affirmation of the ability to choose otherwise.
Is Roe v. Wade doomed? Only time will answer that question. Are there challenges to be faced in the short run regarding what Roe v. Wade means? Most assuredly yes, and it is in these challenges that the true outcome will be determined.
