Posted on 08/12/2007 5:48:50 PM PDT by Delacon
In 1985 a prominent liberal legal figure argued that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion, was a “heavy-handed judicial intervention” that “was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” The writer was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court—and also now a strong supporter of Roe.
Ginsburg isn’t the only backer of abortion rights to have taken issue with the 1973 decision. In 1995, for example, the University of Chicago’s Cass Sunstein, a superstar among liberal law professors, wrote in the Harvard Law Review that the high court “should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” Roe, he argued, centralized an issue centered around privacy, reproduction, and medical ethics, all matters that traditionally have been the province of the states. Moving those moral debates to Washington forced a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire country, raising the stakes, and therefore the contentiousness, of an already divisive issue.
A new book by a staunch critic of abortion also suggests a decentralized approach. In The Politics of Abortion, the conservative sociologist Anne Hendershott offers a scathing, unabashedly polemical history of the pro-choice movement. While Hendershott leaves no ambiguity about her own position on the issue, she closes the book by calling not for more federal antiabortion laws but for returning the issue to the states. It is time to end the “superficial slogans that rally the troops but build impenetrable barriers,” she writes. “Taking the discussions out of the courts and back to the realm of local policy, where we might once again debate the politics of abortion as neighbors and friends, would be a good start.”
On that much, at least, she’s correct. The “pro-choice”/“pro-life” split suggests that only two options are on the table, when in fact far more positions are possible. Just as pregnancy is a continuum, so too is the spectrum of opinion on abortion, from what might be called the Monty Python position—“Every Sperm Is Sacred”—to the philosopher Peter Singer’s argument that even infants lack the self-actualization that would make it immoral to kill them, or at least no more immoral than killing an animal of similar mental capacity. Most views, of course, lie somewhere in between, offering different perspectives on everything from when human life begins to who, aside from the mother, might have a say in the decision to end a pregnancy.
Abortion policy, then, is about drawing lines and setting community standards. Such issues are best dealt with in those diverse laboratories of democracy, the states. A federalist approach would allow a wide array of abortion policies that better reflects the spectrum of public opinion on the issue. That isn’t to say a federalist approach would leave everybody fully satisfied. There would still be people stuck in states whose laws don’t reflect their personal values. But that much isn’t very different from the way things stand today. Roe prevents any state from banning abortion outright, but in places like Utah and Mississippi abortion is extremely rare, due not just to legal restrictions—waiting periods, mandatory counseling, parental notification—but also to the fact that prevailing community values mean there isn’t much of a market for the procedure. Mississippi has just one abortion clinic in the entire state.
The main difference between a purely federalist approach to abortion and what we have today is that in the former each side wouldn’t be clamoring to control the federal government so it could impose its favored policies on the rest of the country. The battles would be fought in the state legislatures, and national politics would no longer be held hostage to the abortion issue.
For such a scenario to emerge, the Supreme Court would need to do more than overturn Roe. It would have to make it clear that the regulation of abortion is a police power reserved to the states, and that it will no longer entertain attempts to override abortion policy made by the states. That approach wouldn’t be perfect, and it wouldn’t satisfy the hard-core activists on either side of the debate, but it would be far preferable to what we have now. As it stands, the Supreme Court is one vote from overturning the decision, with two pro-Roe justices—Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens—generally considered the members most likely to retire.
Unfortunately, judging from the Court’s recent ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart (which upheld a congressional ban on “partial birth” abortions) and the fair-weather approach to federalism taken in cases like Gonzales v. Raich (which upheld a federal ban on medical marijuana), a decision overturning Roe probably would leave the door open to a national ban. The divisive debate would continue.
A different course could be charted if the right embraced the more decentralist approach advocated by Hendershott. A professor of sociology at the University of San Diego, Hendershott is no center-hugging moderate. Her call for a more civilized debate comes after nine chapters of pointed attacks on the abortion rights movement. Her politics sometimes gets in the way of clear-eyed analysis, but her book is nonetheless an informative look at one side of the debate.
In a nutshell, Hendershott’s argument is that abortion has become the defining issue for the American left, more important than social justice, civil rights, economic equality, or feminism itself. She describes, for example, efforts by the group Democrats for Life to get a link from the Democratic National Committee’s website. Although it links to sites as varied as the Easter Seals, the Forest Service, and the Oneida Indian Organization, the party denied the group’s request.
Hendershott’s historical narrative documents how the abortion rights lobby ballooned from a few influential, well-funded, but outnumbered radicals in the early 1960s to a full-fledged movement by the early 1970s. The Ford Foundation, for example, funded a group called Catholics for a Free Choice, a spin-off of the National Organization for Women that sought to carve out wiggle room on the issue for Northeastern Catholics. Through the 1970s, groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League were able to tie abortion inextricably to feminism, a union that seems inevitable today but at the time wasn’t obvious. Hendershott points out that one of the seminal feminist texts, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, never mentions abortion; some early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were vocal opponents of the practice.
By the 1980s the movement controlled much of the Democratic Party. Well-financed pro-choice groups were able to fund candidates who supported abortion rights, while money for anti-abortion liberals was almost nonexistent. By 1993, Hendershott writes, “pro-life voices within the party had effectively been silenced.” High-profile Democrats such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson (who had once described abortion as “genocide”) all flipped on the issue before seeking national office.
Hendershott criticizes the pro-choice movement for trying to suppress information that might injure its cause. In one particularly interesting passage, she discusses General Electric’s remarkable “4D” ultrasound imaging system, a technological innovation that renders striking images of fetuses in the womb. In 2002 G.E. marketed the product in a national campaign aimed at young women, showing expectant mothers bonding with their unborn children while Roberta Flack sang “The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.” The technology was enormously popular. 4D ultrasound stations even began to appear in shopping malls.
Abortion rights proponents leapt into action, fearing that too-real images of unborn fetuses might cost them popular support. After pressure from pro-choicers, G.E. pulled the TV ads, pulled testimonials from its website, and began marketing the technology solely for medical purposes. Several states banned the use of ultrasound for “nonmedical” purposes, including New York, where then–Attorney General Eliot Spitzer subpoenaed 34 anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers for “practicing medicine without a license” because they used the technology.
The 4D controversy is a striking example of how one side of the abortion debate used the law to suppress the flow of information to expectant mothers out of fear of what that information might do to their cause. But Hendershott has little to say about similar efforts on the anti-abortion side. Pro-life lawmakers, for example, repeatedly have attempted to prohibit physicians who receive federal funding from even discussing abortion with their patients, particularly at overseas military hospitals.
Indeed, while Hendershott offers a wide-ranging critique of the pro-choice movement, she never acknowledges that pro-lifers have employed similar tactics. (She does set aside one chapter to attack the violent wing of the anti-abortion movement.) The Christian Coalition and kindred groups, for example, have gone to great lengths to purge their foes from the national Republican Party. They’ve just been less successful at it.
Consider former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a lifelong pro-choicer. Since announcing his candidacy for president, he has told the conservative talk radio titans Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that in spite of his position on the issue, he would nominate justices like the fervent abortion opponents John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court—a signal to Republican primary voters and powerful pro-life activists that they have nothing to worry about. (Of course, Giuliani also says he will continue to support abortion rights. How he’ll reconcile the two isn’t exactly clear.) And while Hendershott regrets that pro-choicers have federalized the abortion debate, she is conspicuously silent on, for example, the conservative push for a pro-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution (a key plank in the Republican Party’s 2004 platform) or efforts by the GOP-controlled Congress to restrict abortion.
Given this one-sidedness, some readers might suspect Hendershott’s support for a federalist approach is disingenuous. “Taking the discussions out of the courts” to the realm of “local policy” would of course require Roe to be overturned, which would be a milestone victory for the pro-life movement. Nevertheless, Hendershott’s history of the pro-choice movement suggests that while overturning Roe would represent a political victory for pro-lifers, the reversal wouldn’t necessarily prevent many abortions. The pro-choicers achieved enormous momentum in the ’60s and ’70s, and support for reproductive rights is much stronger today than it was before Roe.
As late as 1967, 49 of the 50 states still made it a felony to provide an abortion. But in June of that year, the American Medical Association passed a resolution reversing its prior opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest, severe physical deformity of the fetus, or danger to the health or life of the mother. That started a sea change in state legislatures. By the time Roe came down in 1973, just six years later, 17 states had legalized abortions performed to preserve the life or health of the mother. Colorado, North Carolina, and California also included exceptions for the mother’s mental health. Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, and, most significantly, New York had passed laws essentially guaranteeing abortion on demand.
New York’s law, passed just a year before Roe, didn’t include a residency requirement. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization specializing in reproductive issues, estimates that some 100,000 women traveled to New York City to obtain abortions in the time after Albany liberalized the state’s laws and before the Supreme Court issued its opinion.
Without Roe, the pro-choice movement would have had to keep taking its case to the state legislatures. States with more permissive attitudes about sex and reproductive rights likely would have passed more permissive abortion laws. Other states would have embraced tighter restrictions. And some states would have kept the existing prohibitions in place.
Had Roe gone the other way, it’s likely that “partial-birth” abortions already would have been prohibited in most states. (The vast majority of the public opposes the procedure at issue in Carhart, which involves partially delivering a fetus, then making an incision at the base of its skull and vacuuming out the contents.) States with a strong interest in preserving parental rights likely would have required parental permission for a minor to obtain an abortion. Some states might allow abortion but prevent the use of public funds to pay for the procedure. Others might allow abortion on demand and provide funds to ensure poor women’s access to the procedure.
A federalist approach wouldn’t minimize the stakes for either side. But it would recognize how important the issues are to both sides by allowing as many people as possible to live under an abortion policy that best reflects their own values, and it would transform national politics by moving a particularly poisonous argument to a more appropriate venue. Justice Ginsburg may have embraced Roe, but other supporters of abortion rights have moved in the opposite direction. Pro-choicers who have recently criticized Roe v. Wade include The Washington Post’s Benjamin Wittes and Richard Cohen, Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, and Slate’s William Saletan. It’s healthy that at least a few voices on both sides of the debate are finally coming to realize the benefits of leaving this issue to the states.
Radley Balko is a senior editor of Reason.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
False dilemma. The left clamors to control the federal government so that Federal judges can impose elitist-left-wing amorals on society. The right clamors to do so to appoint judges who will return the issue to the states.
It’s surprising how conservative “blue states” like mine become when things are left to the people of the states.
Here in Michigan we have concealed carry with lots of no retreat talk. We opposed gay marraige by a wide margin and got rid of affirmative action in government funded schools and agencies.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Life is not negotiable.
Defending our rights, first of which is LIFE, is the responsibility of government at the national, state, and local levels.
The Declaration of Independence is very clear about what the founders viewed as rights.
Biologically, scientifically, medically, genetically, a preborn human being IS a human being.
The Constitution set out the framework of the government and specified responsibilities in some areas, and reserved responsiilities in other areas to the states.
Protecting human life is the JOB of every government official.
Only people who view the dismemberment of little babies as a liberty dare to hide behind federalism to defend this brutality, and to suggest it can be delegated to the states to decide if and when they will defend innocent human life.
It is very telling that so many of Fred’s supporters take great pains to assure their audience that they are not “prolife hardliner”s.
‘Reason is libertarian. Incidentally, that’s the same argument of the GOP front-runner and of Fred Thompson as well. Let the states decide.’
Yes, I know Reason is libertarian. My point was that of all the “kinds” of conservatives out there, religious conservatives/social conservative/traditional conservatives, who hold this issue most dear, are the least likely to turn to a libertarian magazine or federalist(or small goverment) solutions.
“The Left will never agree to having abortion returned to the States, so its a really moot argument.”
Not really. If we can get just one more republican president, we are pretty much guaranteed two more conservatives on SCOTUS. Then Roe is gone.
I agree. Many people argued that slavery and desegregation were also states rights issues. If you are in the federal branch you have the moral duty to save the babies. You can’t just let other states to allow abortions.
Yes, they use it when it is convenient-like Pontius Pilate.
Not my job, man. I’ll go wash my hands.
it’s a good first start, but eventually it will have to be outlawed at the national level. Otherwise it will never be ended in liberal states like Mass and NY.
“And while Hendershott regrets that pro-choicers have federalized the abortion debate, she is conspicuously silent on, for example, the conservative push for a pro-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution (a key plank in the Republican Party’s 2004 platform) or efforts by the GOP-controlled Congress to restrict abortion.
The author is disingenuous or just stupid if he doesn’t see the difference between what the left did in Roe and what pro-lifers would be doing with a constitutional amendment.
In the first, nine black-robed tyrants swept away the ability of the people to govern themselves.
In the second, to be successful would requre passage of the amendment by two-thirds of each house of Congress, and then passage by the state legislatures of 38 states.
If that were to happen, it would only happen as a result of the ability to achieve a far-ranging consensus in the United States that unborn human persons should be protected in law.
That is the very OPPOSITE of the pro-death murderers did in Roe.
In the Roe versus Wade decision, INJustice Blackmun admitted he was aware of the “well-known facts of fetal development,” but the court intentionally ignored those facts because, according to Blackmun, if they acknowledged the personhood of the unborn child, the
Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution would cover preborn babies.
So, they knew then and know even better now and they ignored the facts in order to foist this barbarism upon the country.
As for the cowards who hide behind federalism, it is very clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity that at the very least, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution extends to the unborn.
The plaintiffs were used and exploited and the facts of the case were lies. So, from top to bottom, it was a very cruel hoax.
Wonder how Fred ruminates on that one.
HA! 'True conservatives' don't let sticky things like federalism or intended powers of the federal government get in the way. Not when there's a social issue they can harp about. (Note as a states rights kind of guy I agree with the article and am 100% pro-life as well)
I know what you are saying. Better that there had never been a Roe V Wade which is loosely based on the right to privacy which is in and of itself not clear in the constitution. Better that SCOTUS had had the guts to define what is a living human being and what is not. After that they would have to expand on when a living human being can be deprived of that life. Surely you agree that the constitution did allow for denying some the right to life. These though are deep philosophical, moral, and religious questons that nobody can agree on. Maybe since they are, they should be left to the states to work out until there is a consensus and then SCOTUS or congress can make it the law of the land.
“HA! ‘True conservatives’ don’t let sticky things like federalism or intended powers of the federal government get in the way. Not when there’s a social issue they can harp about.”
“HA!” what? No I am pretty consistent on this. Give me an issue that is not expressly defined in the constitution and my immediate reaction is to let the states solve it in those “many laboratories”. BTW my first post should have ginen you an idea that I dont harp on social issues. I posted it because I am a federalist NOT a pro lifer or pro choicer.
“As for the cowards who hide behind federalism, it is very clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity that at the very least, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution extends to the unborn.”
No it is not clear that the 14th amendment extends to the unborn. At least not SCOTUS. Not yet anyway. Bite my federalist ass btw if you think I am a coward. Federalism is so great that the founders, who were great themselves, saw that there were issues so devisive that it was best left to the state to solve them amongst themselves.
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands....they should
DECLARE THE CAUSES WHICH IMPEL THEM TO THE SEPARATION.
We declare these TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT: That all men are CREATED equal: that they are
ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS:
that AMONG these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...”
Dec. of Independence-1776
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish JUSTICE,INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves
AND OUR POSTERITY,
do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”
US Constitution-1787
Federalism is simply the belief that some responsisbilities/privileges are shared between the states- like defending life,
while some duties, like police duties, are reserved to the states.
Federalism does not suggest that God-given rights may be passed off to the states.
I’m not opposed to incrementalism as a way to turn back the tide of child-murder - sure, there exist superior alternatives (unborn child protection amendment, or simply an explicit amendment recognizing the personhood of the unborn), but, IMO, the political gulf from here to there is too wide to clear in a single jump.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would extend the bridge a great deal, and save millions. I count anyone supporting that goal as an ally in this regard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.