That’s the tagline for the new Battlestar Galactica series.
Cool, huh?
It may soon (in the next few years) apply to another arena: the abortion debate.
Abortion Nazis have acted for years like overturning Roe would be the end of the world.
Nope.
It’d be the beginning of the fight.
Long term, pro-lifers will win that fight for simple demographic reasons: the "Roe effect." But what would the early stages of the fight look like?
HERE’S SOME ANALYSIS FROM A LADY WHO SEEMS TO BE NO FAN OF THE IDEA OF ENDING ROE BUT WHO RECOGNIZES WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IN PRACTICE.
About that fight . . . bring it on, man! Bring it on!
The sooner we fight it, the sooner baby killing ends.
Long term, pro-lifers will win that fight for simple demographic reasons: the “Roe effect.”
That’s only if we regain control of our children’s educations and also the media that brainwash our children into becoming pro-choice. That’s why the battle for school choice is so important.
And a contracepting culture will be very unlikely to give up it’s early term abortions. Luckily, even Protestants are starting to realize that contraception = teh bad:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/07/not_rare.html
Bring it on!
Although it is implicit to the article (in fact a premise on which the article was written), I wish it was explicitely stated that overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. It still amazes me the number of people (both who see it as good and as bad thing) who think that overturning Roe v. Wade will make abortion illegal throughout the US. People will literally call me a liar when I tell them that abortion was legal in California before Roe vs. Wade and will still be legal if it is overturned.
I wish the public was better informed about this.
I didn’t too much care for the article – she referred to the issue was “both sides fighting over a 6 inch turf” which really cheapens the significance of the issue.
It isn’t that single line out of the editorial which caused me to not like it, but rather I think the whole article stunk of that same tone, sort of lending itself to a “activism is for idiots” idea. Maybe its just me.
I was in law school when Roe was decided. Although in the long term it resulted in more abortions, in the short term it only meant that women intending to have abortions had to travel less far to get them. No doubt convenience has brought about more abortions, but it is also true that overturning Roe and even making abortion illegal in most states will not put an end to legal abortions in the U.S.
That is why I believe the fight must be waged on two fronts: in the legal arena and in the hearts of parents.
Her observations are correct. Most of the progress in the battle over the last couple of decades has been on the pro-life side. There has been some success in exposing abortion for what it is, with the result that (even though it remains legal) it’s practice is disreputable. It’s the “hearts and minds” thing. The article is correct that the situation “on the ground” would change very little, or very slowly.
It is interesting to note that if abortion were to become illegal in many states, it would remain in those places where there are the greatest concentrations of poor people and minorities. Margaret Sanger would be pleased.
When I read “Few pro-life groups realize they’ve fought a 30-year battle to put just a handful of doctors out of business,” I immediately thought of a parallel: “Few Allied commanders realize they’ve fought a 60-month war to put just a handful of fascists out of business.”
When it comes to the corrosive effects of evil, sometimes “just a handful” is all you need.
Hmm..
The Roe v Wade decision allowed states who already permitted abortion to continue to do so, and prevented the other states from banning it.
A simple canceling of Roe would just throw the matter back to the states to decide individually.
But what if the SCOTUS, in whatever case that overturns Roe, finds in its decision that the unborn is a person deserving of full rights to life? Or determines a compelling federal interest in preventing the deaths of the unborn?
Wouldn’t that automatically make abortion a federal crime, no matter what the states say?
Wouldn’t that automatically make abortion a federal crime, no matter what the states say?
The Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to criminalize anything.
Of course, one might argue that they didn’t have the authority to overturn State laws (or any other laws), either.
Our current system of government seems designed to allow as much evil as possible while making it as difficult as possible to put an end to evil.
The Supreme Court could rule that an unborn child is a person who enjoys the protection of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.” That would mean that laws forbidding the killing of persons after they are born apply equally to killing persons before they are born.
I think the point was that, if the unborn are recognized as persons, they would gain the protection of the 14th Amendment, which would override any state laws that permitted abortion.
Marty, the abortion ban that almost passed in South Dakota a few years ago attempted to provide the kind of protection you suggested, declaring the unborn a person as defined in the 14th. Amendment. The SCOTUS never did define “person” in “Roe”. In theory, had SD passed that legistlation (it was scuttled by, of all groups, the NRLC), any attempt to declare that unconstitutional would, I think, have eventually forced the SCOTUS to make a determination they did not make in “Roe”, whether or not the unborn is a person.
I wrote the last post. My apologies for not identifying me.