Posted by
Doc For Christ on Monday, June 01, 2009 12:29:07 AM
Debunking myths of Roe v. Wade
By: Gary Bauer
Few Supreme Court decisions have had as much of an impact on American life
as has Roe v. Wade, which subsequent courts have interpreted as having
discovered a constitutional right to abortion for virtually any reason and at
any time during pregnancy. Since Roe, abortion has taken the lives of at least
50 million Americans (equal to the combined populations of 25 states). The
demographic repercussions of Roe continue to shape voting patterns and are a
driving force behind America’s fast-approaching entitlements crisis.
Despite its prominence, several profound misconceptions exist about Roe.
These misconceptions help to explain why it remains so controversial 36 years
after it was handed down.
The first misconception is that the right to
abortion has constitutional roots. But Roe’s justification actually derives from
an abstract interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s premise of liberty and the
malleable concept of a right to privacy found not in the actual text of the
Constitution but rather in its “penumbras” and emanations. These foundations are
so dubious that even leading lights on the left have criticized Roe’s legal
reasoning. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, has called
Roe “heavy-handed judicial intervention.”
A second misconception is that
Americans overwhelming support Roe v. Wade. But the public remains remarkably
uninformed about what the court ruling means. The left has done a great job
convincing many Americans that Roe is simply a synonym for abortion rights and
that, if one supports even a limited right to abortion, one must also support
Roe.
In a 2007 study of registered voters, respondents were asked
whether they wanted Roe overturned. A majority (55 percent) said no, while 34
percent said yes. But when respondents were told what Roe means — that it
prohibits states from limiting abortion during the first six months of pregnancy
and that, if Roe were overturned, states could pass laws that would permit
abortion — the share who opposed reversing Roe dropped 7 points, to 48 percent.
Meanwhile, the number of people who supported overturning Roe jumped 9 points,
to 43 percent. That’s a 16-point swing.
The survey actually understated
how extreme Roe is. For instance, surveyors didn’t explain that the “health”
exception to late-term prohibitions is so expansive that abortion is effectively
available for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, something most
Americans oppose.
Another misconception concerns what would happen if Roe were
overturned. The day after Roe’s reversal, abortion policy would revert back to
the states. Some states would severely restrict abortion, while a bigger group
of more populous states would likely pass laws guaranteeing the same access to
abortion they have now. So, far from ending the abortion battle, Roe’s reversal
would mark the beginning of a battle to which the past 35 years have been a
prelude.
A post-Roe America would look like the America of today in terms of the
sheer volume of abortions. The major difference would be an anti-abortion
movement toiling to tackle 50 separate abortion policies simultaneously. Another
important difference is that we would no longer teach young Americans the lie
that — among their cherished constitutional rights of free speech, religion and
assembly — there is also a right to take the life of an unborn baby.
A
final misconception about Roe is one too often held by its opponents: that Roe’s
reversal is the ultimate anti-abortion goal and that support for constitutional
protections for the unborn betrays the federalist principles of conservatism.
But by asserting states’ rights, Roe’s anti-abortion opposition effectively (if
unwittingly) accepts Roe’s reasoning that prenatal life is not a due process
right within the constitutional framework and, therefore, that the unborn child
is not a constitutional “person.”
Moreover, in our system of government,
certain issues are left to the states while others are deemed so essential to
our understanding of democracy that they must be taken up nationally. We fought
a civil war over the conviction that some issues are too fundamental to be
decided state by state. Just as slavery was an assault on human dignity, the
slaughter of millions of unborn children is an assault on a natural human right
that exists prior to, and regardless of, the whims of a majority.
The
misconceptions surrounding Roe help explain why it is at least as controversial
today as it was when it was handed down. The passion Roe continues to evoke will
be evident in the scores of thousands of people who descended on Washington this
week not to celebrate the swearing-in of a new president but to march peacefully
against the scourge of abortion initiated, in large part, by Roe.
With
President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress, Roe probably won’t be
overturned for years. But abortion-rights-supporting and anti-abortion Americans
alike should welcome the day that it is, because it will allow a real discussion
about abortion to take place. And in order for that discussion to begin, the
misconceptions about Roe must be dispelled.
Former presidential
candidate and radio talk show host Gary Bauer is president of American Values
and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
© 2009 Capitol News
Company, LLC