The Feminist Majority Foundation sent me a fundraising email which claimed that “The fate of Roe still hangs by ONE VOTE on the Supreme Court.”
The FMF is lying. Currently, the Supreme Court is 3-6 in favor of Roe (or, to be technical, in favor of Casey) (The three anti-Roe votes are Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia). The “fate of Roe” hangs by two votes, not one.
As much as I admire the FMF, lying in a fundraising appeal is unethical and inexcusable.
* * *
So how “in danger” is Roe? Well, if Bush wins re-election, and if two of the current votes for Roe retire (O’Conner and Stevens are plausible possibilities), then it’s possible that Roe could be overturned. Bush could replace O’Conner and Stevens with pro-lifers.
Or could he? The Senate Democrats would probably filibuster an overtly pro-life Supreme Court nominee. But they might not have the numbers to sustain a filibuster; in 2004, more Senate Democrats than Republicans are up for re-election, making it likely that Senate Republicans will increase their majority.
At one time, I thought that Bush would probably not choose to seat justices who would overturn Roe, because such a ruling would probably benefit democrats in many elections (including the 2008 presidential election). However, the last few years of watching President Bush govern has convinced me that whatever else I dislike about Bush, he doesn’t lack for political courage. On issues from pre-emptive invasion to ridiculously huge tax cuts, Bush has been willing to take extreme steps; he might well do the same on abortion.
Overall, I can’t dismiss the possibility that a Bush re-election could lead to Roe v Wade being overturned.
Of course, even if Roe is overturned, that won’t mean that abortion will be illegal nationwide. It’ll be outlawed in some states, and many states that won’t outlaw it will pass laws making it much harder to obtain abortions (look for laws to be passed forbidding married women from getting an abortion without their husband’s permission, for example). Still, some states – mostly in the Northeast and Northwest, where women have higher status – will continue to have legal abortion.
So even if Roe is overturned, abortion won’t be outlawed entirely. It will be outlawed enough, however, to significantly worsen the lives and reduce the freedom of many American girls and women. That alone is reason enough to vote for John Kerry, in my book.
(If we’re really lucky, Kerry will be elected and get a chance to replace Rehnquist with a pro-choice justice. However, that’s pretty unlikely; Rehnquist wouldn’t voluntarily retire with a Democrat in the White House).
* * *
UPDATE: You know, I can’t beleive I forgot to post this bit of news, which was what has brought the issue to mind this week: It turns out that Roe v Wade was very nearly overturned in 1992., in the Casey decision.
As the late Justice Blackmun’s private papers, which were just released last week, show, Rehnquist had put together a five-member majority for overturning Roe and had actually written a draft of his majority opinion when Justice Kennedy switched sides.
Which makes me awfully glad that Bork, who almost certainly would have voted to overturn Roe, was turned down by the Senate. Kennedy, you’ll recall, was nominated after Bork’s rejection..
If you want true freedom in the United States, vote for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party. Forget the two party system. They want to rule every aspect of your life from cradle to grave.
Last time I checked the average libertarian was still considered a wild card firmly gripped in the Republican hand, one that could easily be played with just the promise of tax cuts. I’ll listen to the party when it starts to mean what it says about defending the important liberties.
Deep River – were it only true! No, the libertarian party is a truly wild card, clearly and demonstrably out of tune with anyone in the world, lacking any “wedge” issue with the possible exception of the failed war on drugs..
How can we enforce the separation of church and state in this country?!
Actually, I was impressed with the Libertarian Party in WA this election cycle. The party platform featured strong support for SSM. This is the first time I have ever seen a Libertarian Party promote its social agenda at the same level with its economic agenda. Alas, it seems like the party members really only care about the economic issues.
Helena, First you have to define separation of Church and State, then you can enforce it.
The problem I see however, is that historians have yet to truly explain what the founding fathers meant by separation of Church and State.
I think I know, but then I’m no historian.
I’m a historian-in-training, but like most academic historians I work on a pretty narrow period, and this isn’t it. But I suspect the problem is not that historians are unclear about what the “founding fathers” meant by the separation of church and state. (I’d be suprised if they all meant the same thing. But that’s a separate issue.) I suspect the problem is that the “founding fathers” had completely different ideas than modern people about the role of government and therefore that they couldn’t have conceived of many of the questions with which we grapple today. It’s very difficult to figure out how they would have responded to contemporary controversies, because it requires that you try to figure out how they would have reacted to modernity, and there’s really no way to know. If you asked them “should there be Christian prayer in state-funded, manditory schools,” I suspect they would have fixated on the existence of state-sponsored, manditory schools and thought the prayer thing was totally secondary.
Incidentally, I don’t think most people realize that the Federal Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states until the 14th amendment was ratified in the 1860s. Until then, it only limited the Federal government. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, some states had established religions, and that was perfectly Constitutional.
Justice Ginsberg herself said that the privacy argument for the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was supported by a “tortured logic.”
It’s important that we recognise that a fetus is really an unborn child. Although we often don’t think of it that way, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.
Virgin of the Globe, pray for us!
Justice Ginsberg herself said that the privacy argument for the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was supported by a “tortured logic.”
It’s important that we recognise that a fetus is really an unborn child. Although we often don’t think of it that way, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.
Virgin of the Globe, pray for us!
Pingback: Crescat Sententia