I've long believed that the decision in Roe v. Wade was an example of judicial overreach that did very little to secure women's rights and ultimately helped to empowered the pro-life movement. Whether you agree with that position or not, I think it's pretty hard to argue that Roe was fairly decided. Aside from some of the practical issues that complicated the case -- like the fact that Jane Roe (whose real name is Norma McCorvey) now admits she committed perjury when she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape -- there are a number of moral and legal question which I believe the Court overlooked or oversimplified in rendering its final decision. Still, there's one thing that keeps bugging me . . .
The debate over Roe usually centers around two main arguments. Supporters of the decision maintain that there is a Constitutionally-implied right to privacy (established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut), which safeguards a woman's right to control her own body. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that states have a "compelling interest" in preserving potential life (at whatever stage of development), and that this interest may supersede the right of a mother to arbitrarily terminate her pregnancy.
I happen to think the notion that an implied "right to privacy" further implies a right to unlimited legal abortion within the first trimester is a bit of a logical leap. But the question that's been really been nagging at me is this: If the Supreme Court doesn't recognize an unborn child as having any compelling right to life (at least within the first trimester), how can our legal system hold abusive husbands responsible when their actions lead to miscarriage or death of the child? Why, for example, was someone like Scott Peterson charged with second degree murder in the killing his unborn child? If Laci Peterson had been earlier along in her pregnancy, would this charge have stuck?
Any thoughts?
The debate over Roe usually centers around two main arguments. Supporters of the decision maintain that there is a Constitutionally-implied right to privacy (established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut), which safeguards a woman's right to control her own body. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that states have a "compelling interest" in preserving potential life (at whatever stage of development), and that this interest may supersede the right of a mother to arbitrarily terminate her pregnancy.
I happen to think the notion that an implied "right to privacy" further implies a right to unlimited legal abortion within the first trimester is a bit of a logical leap. But the question that's been really been nagging at me is this: If the Supreme Court doesn't recognize an unborn child as having any compelling right to life (at least within the first trimester), how can our legal system hold abusive husbands responsible when their actions lead to miscarriage or death of the child? Why, for example, was someone like Scott Peterson charged with second degree murder in the killing his unborn child? If Laci Peterson had been earlier along in her pregnancy, would this charge have stuck?
Any thoughts?
6 comments:
"I've long believed that the decision in Roe v. Wade was an example of judicial overreach that did very little to secure women's rights and ultimately helped to empowered the pro-life movement."
Really? Because prior to Roe, states could (and did) make abortion illegal. And access to safe, legal abortions is one of the tenets of the modern women's rights movement (modern extending to before Roe). As for empowering the pro-life movement, even if Roe helped galvanize them, their position, especially recently, has become more and more tenuous to the point where they now are thinking about focusing on creating social programs and working to limit the number of abortions instead of trying to ban abortion outright because they have become so frustrated with the failures of efforts to overturn abortion rights both in the states and by overturning Roe all together. The pro-life movement may have been galvanized, but that doesn't mean that it incited feelings that weren't there previously or that they are generally successful.
" If the Supreme Court doesn't recognize an unborn child as having any compelling right to life (at least within the first trimester), how can our legal system hold abusive husbands responsible when their actions lead to miscarriage or death of the child?"
This, I agree with. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a well-meaning piece of legislation; but it is wholly contrary to the fundamental principle that makes abortion legal; and that is why I don't like it. I'm not so cynical as to believe that laws like this are enacted as a sort of stealth attack on a woman's right to choose, because I honestly do believe that many who voted simply voted because they did not want a heinous murder, like Laci's, to have even the least little bit of leniency. At the same time, I'm sure that at some point, the wheels are going to turn in someone's head, and it will be used in an attempt to outlaw abortion.
Yo, Pet. A few points:
1) In the states where abortion statutes were repealed by Roe, there are still scant few abortion providers. So, it's not clear to me that Roe dramatically improved access to legal abortion.
2) It's not only that Roe became a rallying cry for social conservatives; the decision also contributed to a dramatic political realignment among fiscally conservative Democrats, who felt more comfortable voting for pro-life Republicans (since the Supreme Court had rendered abortion a non-issue).
You have to consider the political opportunity costs of the Roe decision. What other social victories might Progressives have squandered? Was it worth it to establish a few additional abortion clinics in areas were pro-life ideology still dominates?
3) I think Roe was bad case law, plain and simple. And I'm not alone. Even prominent liberal legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz have said that Roe set a very dangerous precedent.
"In the states where abortion statutes were repealed by Roe, there are still scant few abortion providers. So, it's not clear to me that Roe dramatically improved access to legal abortion."
Scant few abortion providers is immensely better than none in my book. It would be better if there were more, obviously. Especially since most abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, provide other low-cost services like pap smears and birth control and other helpful ob-gyn services. But even if a person has to travel 6 or so hours to get to a clinic, that is still much better than (a) not having access to any licensed professional and (b) fearing prosecution.
"You have to consider the political opportunity costs of the Roe decision. What other social victories might Progressives have squandered? Was it worth it to establish a few additional abortion clinics in areas were pro-life ideology still dominates?"
1) I don't think the political costs of Roe were very much apparent in 1973, or even 1976. In 1976, the main wing of the Republican party was still not anti-abortion. It wasn't even until 1980 that the Evangelical movement became anti-abortion.
2) I think that any truly progressive social policy would have probably created a backlash - and that part of the conservative backlash didn't even come from Roe. I don't think that Roe realigned the country, especially considering that conservative thought and backlash toward progressive ideals started occurring in the middle of Johnson's presidency. And then there was Watergate and the after affects of that was Carter, who was a pretty pathetic president. And the Republicans were able to grab the Evangelicals and form their party around this idea of small government that also had its nose in people's private lives.
3) I think the framing of the fight is as much a problem as anything else. "Pro-life" versus "Pro-choice", where "Pro-choice" is just as frequently referenced as "Pro-abortion". The Democrats and progressives stopped fighting dirty for God knows what reason, and didn't challenge that division of thoughts. "Pro-life" should have been immediately challenged as "anti-choice", and the "pro-choice" should have fought harder not only to be called "pro-choice" but to also be called "pro-life". They should have challenged the idea that someone could be pro-life and then fight for the death penalty. They should have fought against the sound bite of "What don't you understand about all people created equal" by hitting them with their stance on gay rights. One of the biggest problems progressives have and Democrats have is that they have no idea how to frame the issues. John Kerry lost in part in 2004 because he did not fight back hard enough against the Swift Boat people, and so even conservative leaning people who didn't believe the Swift Boat ads still ended up voting for Bush because they weren't going to vote for someone who wasn't standing up for himself. Saxby Chambliss should never have won in Georgia against Max Cleland in 2002, because the Democrats should have come out hard and fast against a man who hadn't fought in Vietnam due to military deferments, who was disparaging a triple amputee veteran.
4) I don't think whether a progressive policy was politically expedient or not in the coming years should be something we should place much weight on, due partially to #s 1 & 3 and partially because that is something that can only be answered by hindsight and worries of squandering political possibilities in years to come could cause paralysis - or half-assed progressive policies meant to not offend the opposing side but that did little to obtain actual progress. If Bill Clinton had actually supported gays serving openly in the military instead of implementing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", it is possible that there would have been conservative political backlash, and enough to sink any Democratic effort for years to come (as if they needed any more help with that). But that doesn't make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" anything other than an abject failure. Progress can only be achieved if we show gumption, if we recognize that doing X will achieve Y while potentially limiting Z. Everything in this world is a give and a take. If making gay marriage legal in all 50 states tomorrow made it easier for Republicans to get elected in the next couple of elections, I could not positively say that right wasn't worth it.
If only as much time was spent discussing ways to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies as is spent discussing whether abortion is moral/immoral, should be legal/illegal, etc....maybe
then we'd be getting somewhere.
:)
The more I look at PETA’s advertisements, the less I trust your argument. The majority of their ads are pretty low-key.
It’s true that a number of ads feature naked women, but there are also many ads featuring naked or semi-naked men, and several ads featuring nude couples.
There was at least one ad featuring Pamela Anderson wearing the same outfit as Alicia Mayer, so I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that PETA only displayed minority women wearing the skimpier “veggie” outfit. (In fact, even without this photo of Pamela Anderson, I think it’s a stretch for you to assume the disparity was racially motivated – the women who wore the more revealing outfits were both models, while the women who wore cocktail dresses were actresses.)
Perhaps more importantly, PETA has disseminated ads that are unabashedly feminist.
There are so many PETA ads out there that I think it’s unfair to construct a single narrative to explain all of them, which is essentially what you’re doing.
Post a Comment