This article is a perfect example of being unable to see your own biases. We hear about “pro-life extremists” that want to ban abortion. Why don’t we also hear about “pro-abortion extremists” that want to be able to partially deliver viable babies and sever their spinal cords before the head comes out?
According to a major poll that came out on Monday (before the leak): 60% of Americans believe Roe should be maintained. 50% believe abortion should be illegal after week 15. This is a logical impossibility, which means most Americans don’t seem to know a darn thing about Roe or abortion. It isn’t that important to them anyway; other surveys consistently place abortion in the bottom quarter of voters’ issue lists.
Fortunately, SCOTUS is a legal institution, so polls don’t matter much. Legally, Roe was screwed up law when it was passed. 50 years hasn’t improved its vintage. Locking the voters out of the abortion debate hasn’t diminished the political divide either. European voters established laws through the democratic process instead of having them forced on them by judicial fiat. Not surprisingly, abortion isn’t a significant issue there, and European laws (abortion largely banned after week 12) are similar to Texas
The only way to make this issue going away is to allow Americans to decide it through their elected representatives. And in a large, regionally pluralistic country, that will need to be done at the state level. Overturning Roe makes that possible, and finally lets us move on to real, broadly accepted, compromises.
60% of Americans believe Roe should be maintained. 50% believe abortion should be illegal after week 15. This is a logical impossibility,
Why is it a logical impossibilty – or am I being obtuse? The law says driving a car is legal, but not above 70mph, that owning a gun is legal, but not a machine gun, and that you can slap someone and get an oscar, but if you punch them you may go to jail.
The impossibly comes from the fact that Roe made any restriction on abortion nigh impossible.
Some of the 50% who would prefer abortion be illegal after week 15 also must have believed that Roe should be upheld, since at least 10% of respondents held both of those views. So effectively those people want two things that are directly opposed to reach other.
It would be like saying “I want national legalization of marijuana, but I think current federal drug regulations should not be changed.”
The Gonzales v. Carhart case in 2007 in the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 federal partial birth abortion ban. This did not limit abortion, but merely the procedure of partially removing the fetus before killing it.—It was not a ban on abortion at any period of pregnancy, merely on an extreme type of abortion.
I think your description is misleading.
Your reasoning makes no sense. A person can easily feel that a current law is not exactly delineated in a way that reflects their values, but assume it is better than not having it at all.
Francis MacGabhann
1 year ago
The whole “the people aren’t too bright and need to be guided” tone is part of the problem.
Ok, let me rephrase it, as my comments seems to have confused some people.
Abortion has been legal in the US for fifteen years, so really there was little-to-no need for pro-choice supporters to vote in support of it. Or put another way – with all the problems and issues that America, or a State has, why would a voter cast their ballot just because a candidate supports something that is already legal, and supported by SC precedent?
Or, did you actually mean: “if the SC votes down RvW, and some states then ban it, pro-choice voters in those states can just vote for pro-choice state legislator [so there is no problem]. Well, that’s also obtuse, for other reasons, chief among them, don’t expect people to be happy, to think there’s no problem, when they have a 50 year SC ruled right taken away from them. Especially where that right pertains to a medical procedure on one’s own body that is allowed in every developed country – and where the anti arguments are overwhelmingly religious. It might cause someone to snort at the claim that the US is the Land of the Free, or that the goverment follows the Constitution (in particular the 1st Amendment).
Sounds reasonable. The author talked a lot, but I’m not sure she said very much.
Jacob Mason
1 year ago
While completely opposed to the author’s moral position on the issue of abortion, I think I agree that the end of Roe v. Wade will be good for American public life generally.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jacob Mason
Bryan Dale
1 year ago
There are zealots on both sides of the issue. The state legislatures are far better suited than the courts to reconcile conflicting views and reach a compromise acceptable to most of their citizens. The extremists on either side will never be satisfied but they can be marginalized.
This article is a perfect example of being unable to see your own biases. We hear about “pro-life extremists” that want to ban abortion. Why don’t we also hear about “pro-abortion extremists” that want to be able to partially deliver viable babies and sever their spinal cords before the head comes out?
According to a major poll that came out on Monday (before the leak): 60% of Americans believe Roe should be maintained. 50% believe abortion should be illegal after week 15. This is a logical impossibility, which means most Americans don’t seem to know a darn thing about Roe or abortion. It isn’t that important to them anyway; other surveys consistently place abortion in the bottom quarter of voters’ issue lists.
Fortunately, SCOTUS is a legal institution, so polls don’t matter much. Legally, Roe was screwed up law when it was passed. 50 years hasn’t improved its vintage. Locking the voters out of the abortion debate hasn’t diminished the political divide either. European voters established laws through the democratic process instead of having them forced on them by judicial fiat. Not surprisingly, abortion isn’t a significant issue there, and European laws (abortion largely banned after week 12) are similar to Texas
The only way to make this issue going away is to allow Americans to decide it through their elected representatives. And in a large, regionally pluralistic country, that will need to be done at the state level. Overturning Roe makes that possible, and finally lets us move on to real, broadly accepted, compromises.
60% of Americans believe Roe should be maintained. 50% believe abortion should be illegal after week 15. This is a logical impossibility,
Why is it a logical impossibilty – or am I being obtuse? The law says driving a car is legal, but not above 70mph, that owning a gun is legal, but not a machine gun, and that you can slap someone and get an oscar, but if you punch them you may go to jail.
The impossibly comes from the fact that Roe made any restriction on abortion nigh impossible.
Some of the 50% who would prefer abortion be illegal after week 15 also must have believed that Roe should be upheld, since at least 10% of respondents held both of those views. So effectively those people want two things that are directly opposed to reach other.
It would be like saying “I want national legalization of marijuana, but I think current federal drug regulations should not be changed.”
“the fact that Roe made any restriction on abortion nigh impossible”
On 18 April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that banned abortions in the second trimester.
Who is confused?
The Gonzales v. Carhart case in 2007 in the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 federal partial birth abortion ban. This did not limit abortion, but merely the procedure of partially removing the fetus before killing it.—It was not a ban on abortion at any period of pregnancy, merely on an extreme type of abortion.
I think your description is misleading.
Your reasoning makes no sense. A person can easily feel that a current law is not exactly delineated in a way that reflects their values, but assume it is better than not having it at all.
The whole “the people aren’t too bright and need to be guided” tone is part of the problem.
And I love when authors use phrases like “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” in the same article. Says a lot.
I know I’m being obtuse, but, if voters want abortion to be legal, why don’t they vote for state legislators who support it?
Because it is legal. (yup, you were being obtuse)
Ok, let me rephrase it, as my comments seems to have confused some people.
Abortion has been legal in the US for fifteen years, so really there was little-to-no need for pro-choice supporters to vote in support of it. Or put another way – with all the problems and issues that America, or a State has, why would a voter cast their ballot just because a candidate supports something that is already legal, and supported by SC precedent?
Or, did you actually mean: “if the SC votes down RvW, and some states then ban it, pro-choice voters in those states can just vote for pro-choice state legislator [so there is no problem]. Well, that’s also obtuse, for other reasons, chief among them, don’t expect people to be happy, to think there’s no problem, when they have a 50 year SC ruled right taken away from them. Especially where that right pertains to a medical procedure on one’s own body that is allowed in every developed country – and where the anti arguments are overwhelmingly religious. It might cause someone to snort at the claim that the US is the Land of the Free, or that the goverment follows the Constitution (in particular the 1st Amendment).
Democracy only works when leftist ideas become laws. When conservative ideas become laws, then we have a threat to democracy.
Because it is secondary or tertiary to other, more important issues: gun control, the economy, education, and so on.
Sounds reasonable. The author talked a lot, but I’m not sure she said very much.
While completely opposed to the author’s moral position on the issue of abortion, I think I agree that the end of Roe v. Wade will be good for American public life generally.
There are zealots on both sides of the issue. The state legislatures are far better suited than the courts to reconcile conflicting views and reach a compromise acceptable to most of their citizens. The extremists on either side will never be satisfied but they can be marginalized.