The Economist presented a heretical proposal regarding the debate over abortion in today's America. My interpretation of it is like this:
Most other rich, western countries have solved their abortion dispute through referenda or national legislatures, but the US continues to use a flimsy court decision to uphold the most contentious social issue of our time. Also, the fact that we rely on our judiciary instead of popular will has further exacerbated the culture wars in our country, in comparison to the countries who have imposed the democratic process, like the EU countries.
Lets look at the different sides of the issue. Politically, Roe v. Wade has hurt the Democrats through its divisiveness within the party and has rallied Republicans. As the article states, "80% of Americans want abortion to be legal—either in all circumstances (21-31%) or in some circumstances (51-61%). Without Roe, abortion might be slightly restricted, but certainly not banned, as conservatives want."
Another popular argument for regarding abortion involves letting the states decide. This would also hurt conservatives. If you let certain states ban abortion, it will likely be those states who have little to no abortion clinics to begin with, which would do little to change the current circumstances. Also, there are only a handful of states who would pass such laws with some more moderate to right-leaning states who may struggle to muster a majority to pass an all out ban.
SO...Would this strategic defeat, if the Democrats choose to overturn Roe and turn to a referendum-like measure, be Napoleonic in stature? I agree that turning to the people and the democratic process would go a long way in reshaping the image of the Democratic Party to, alas, represent the party of the people again and to prevent 'activist judges' from pushing the Democratic agenda in lieu of a more populist measure. Moreover, if Roe was overturned, how many Republicans would truely vote for an outright ban on abortion if only one in five Americans support it? This could end up being the divisive issue for Republicans. However, in the end, the culture wars are definitely anarchic in nature and to cede any ground would mean a surrendering of what we have worked so hard to protect since 1973 when the case was decided.
Give the power to the people... Well, except for the dumb ones... and the poor... and the radicals... okay, maybe just a few people... We would hold these people in high esteem, maybe even pay them for their deliberative services. Perhaps they could even have an official form of dress... robes are quite cool looking... Oh, wait...
Roe v. Wade and its legal interpretation sole purpose is to keep the abortion issue on the forefront even outside of election years.
I was always under the impression that Roe v. Wade's opposers mostly support restrictions on abortions. For example: requiring notification of parents or husbands. This makes the debate even trickier, because Roe v. Wade was about privacy, not abortion. The case was decided like it was because the court ruled that it was a private matter and choice, and the issues today also run around the fact that restrictions like the aforementioned ones are a blatant disregard for the right to privacy. The point about states and amount of abortion clinics is interesting, since Kansas, a very famous conservative debate site, was once "The Abortion Capital of the US", with Wichita being one of the few cities a woman could get a third trimester abortion. Do you think that Kansas would go for pro-choice today?
The Federalist Papers state the judiciary is intended to "save the minority from the tyranny of the majority."
This concept applies to our holdings of Roe v Wade. The majority is imposing their moral beliefs on society as a whole and that is the very purpose for which the judicial branch serves.
I for one oppose a vote for fear of losing the option. Women have a right to decided what happens within their bodies. I realize that this ideal is not specifically touched within the Bill of Rights, but I feel the freedoms of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness encompass a woman's right to decide on her reproductive abilities -- regardless of majority opinion.
Jacqulyn--
Two replies for you. One, inform me on where the US Constitution states "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Two, the majority of this country (over 60%) support a woman's right to choose. So then, why do you oppose this?
I misspoke. The life, liberty and the persuit of happiness phrase is in the Declaration of Independence.
But as for my point, it is still implied in the Constitution...
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I live in Texas, we have one democratic county and I live in it -- Travis County. If left to the states, I feel that Texas would ban abortion.
I hear ya. But how prevalent now are abortions in a state like Texas?
87,308 abortions were performed in Texas (1995 statistics) The only state with more abortions was New York...wow - I had no idea it was that prevelant here in Texas.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/age.asp
This site lists all states and their abortion statistics. It's quite informative. So maybe Texas would allow abortion, but with an overwhelming republican majority (remember when the TX democrats fled TX for OK to protest changing the voting district boundaries? well, despite their efforts the redistricting passed and knocked out all democratic districts besides Travis County.) I fear too many would vote according to party lines.
Interesting...thanks for the follow up. The only hope for Texas would be if it turns more purple/blue during the midterm elections and some pro-life repubs jump ship on this issue, but unlikely.