Abortion…
(Still with me? Hang in there.)
…gets everyone angry just talking about it. Some hear the word and seethe about theocratic Republicans wanting Jesus in every American womb. Others retort that abortion is worse than the Holocaust. Everyone else would rather avoid the topic entirely. Starting a conversation (or an article) with “abortion” is a great way to lose friends.
But with the Supreme Court’s recentupholding of a federal partial-birth abortionban, and severalstatescontemplating other abortion laws, this issue is worth talking about.
Bringing up Roe v. Wade also riles people. The pro-abortion left mocks the right as misogynists with no concept of legal precedent. The anti-choice right mocks the left as murderers with no concept of democratic law making.
And then of course theyboth decry political pandering and invective.
I know I’m not the only one who thinks this is madness. (Necessary…)
But despite the political blather, Democrats and Republicans aren’t all sociopaths. Democrats value their lives and their children. Nor do Republicans want their neighbors in their business or their bodies. The idea that disagreement over abortion stems from disagreement over one of these basic American values — life and privacy — is almost offensive.
“Pro-life” people think that life starts at conception. “Pro-choice” people think that life starts later. Both parties would agree that when and if the fetus is a living human, we shouldn’t kill it. And when the fetus is not a living human, it’s an “abnormal growth” in a woman’s abdomen and the woman gets to choose.
Notice that Roe assumes that life starts after — not at — conception. Precisely that assumption corrupts the national discourse because no one, in making the law, ever honestly debated that issue.
The Supreme Court should protect all rights, but it’s as incapable of determining when life starts as it is incapable of determining which rights exist. All courts can do without being arbitrary and patronizing is enforce the letter of the law. When the court strays from the text, “we the people” aren’t governing ourselves — we’re at the mercy of nine self-righteous and capricious village elders. Only when our legislatures control the abortion debate will politicians stop their bickering over “litmus tests” for judges and focus on the real questions.
Roe does not claim that the Constitution explicitly enumerates a right to abortion, but rather that the right arises from the shadows of other rights. Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe’s precedent decision, explains: “Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
But let’s place sophistry aside. If we or any generation had thought that more privacy protections were necessary than what the Constitution already enumerates, we would have amended the Constitution. The court needn’t guess if we’ve changed our minds — we’ll tell them.
Plessy v. Furgeson and Roe are not morally equivalent, but America’s experience with Plessy shows that we can avoid a lot of trouble if we stick to our original agreement — that is, the text of the Constitution.
Maybe you’re thinking I’m some Republican hack. On the contrary — I think life starts after conception and we should protect a woman’s right to an abortion until that life begins. But maybe I don’t know. I haven’t heard many thoughtful discussions on the definition of life.
You might suppose that liberals actually do want a Constitutional amendment enshrining Roe’s protections lest those damn fascist Republicans with their Big Corporations kill Roe. You might also suppose that conservatives actually do want a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe lest those damn commie Democrats with their Big Unions maintain Roe. Regardless, I would start with the court’s repealing Roe on principle.
But what any of us want doesn’t really matter unless legislatures regain control of abortion law.