First, I would like to say that contrary to “Name Withheld’s” assertion that I seek only to provoke, my true intention is to spark serious debate about an issue which has not been debated enough. I am gratified to see that the content and tone of most of the responses to my letter were serious, well-thought out, and civil. This is the kind of debate we must have on this issue, and one which was cut short for both sides by Roe v. Wade.
Mr. Parker and Ms. Laurie Greer make some good points about Roe v. Wade. I am afraid I may not be clever enough to respond sufficiently, but fortunately I don’t have to. Instead, I would point to the arguments of several prominent pro-choice legal scholars who also contend that Roe is bad law.
Such figures as Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe, Edward Lazarus (former clerk to Harry Blackmun, who wrote the lead opinion for Roe v. Wade), and John Hart Ely (dean of Stanford Law) have all written extensively about the subject.
Their essential point is this: while a Constitutional argument to protect abortion rights can indeed be made, Roe v.. Wade failed to do so in a convincing and long-standing way.
Indeed, one pro-choice commentator, Benjamin Wittes, wrote that ”by removing the issue from the policy arena, the Supreme Court has prevented abortion-rights supporters from winning a debate in which public opinion favors them.”
I sort of disagree with this point, but his notion that Roe v. Wade has actually hurt pro-choicers’ ability to make their case is an interesting one.
He goes on to say that ”Conservatives who fulminate that the Court made up the right to abortion, which appears explicitly nowhere in the Constitution, are being simplistic, but they’re not entirely wrong. In the years since the decision, an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky; abortion policy is a question that the Constitution —even broadly construed — cannot convincingly be read to resolve.” (“Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.)
I respect that one can indeed have a highly intellectual argument for supporting both abortion and Roe v. Wade. But many a legal scholar who sympathize with the issue nevertheless admit that the legal and intellectual underpinnings of Roe are insufficient.
This basic fact is why pro-choice activists and politicians place so much importance on the personal beliefs of justices. They know that only a personal —read “emotional” — commitment to abortion can sway an otherwise objective legal mind to rule in favor of upholding a ruling which they know deep down to be flawed.
Ms. Greer went on to say that I “mentioned the word ‘life’ with regard to a woman’s womb.” Ms. Greer, I may not be a scientist, but I am no fool. I do not consider a woman’s womb to be a “life,” just as I do not consider a pancreas to be a baby. Rather, when I refer to life, I refer to the life IN the womb. This little misunderstanding perfectly illustrates the problem.
Pro-choicers talk about having rights over their own bodies, as if pro-lifers were denying them the right to have a kidney removed or a stomach stapled. In fact, pro-lifers would agree that bodies are sacrosanct and extend that protection and concern to the newly formed bodies inside the womb of a woman.
Of course, I and every single pro-lifer I know care immensely for the well-being of the woman who finds herself in a difficult position. Pro-life organizations offer counseling, money, love, and a variety of options to women faced with an unwanted pregnancy. In so doing, they put to shame the likes of Planned Parenthood who claim to care for women, but rarely offer such real concern and care.
But as much as we sympathize with women, we cannot ignore the well-being of the new life in the womb. Killing that child, taking that life may seem like a solution to a difficult problem, but isn’t it just compounding the tragedy? Especially when there are so many (so many!) people who want to adopt and when society has made it ever more acceptable to raise a child out of wedlock.
Frankly, Ms. Kim Learnard’s admonition for all of us to mind our own “beeswax” may have been cute and coy, but as an argument, it simply doesn’t hold up. Would Ms. Learnard say the same thing if her friend was being beaten by a violent husband? Would she have said the same when civil rights protesters were being fire-hosed and attacked by dogs? I think not.
In a civil society, we have an obligation to step in and defend the defenseless and the weak. As an ardent pro-lifer, I believe there is none so innocent and defenseless as the unborn. I will not therefore stand by and do nothing while they are being slaughtered at a rate of more than 1 million per year, especially when 95 percent of abortions are undertaken as a means of birth control.
In closing, let me say this: I am for overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the debate to the states, and maybe even to the Supreme Court. I would fight against legislative statutes and laws legalizing abortion, but once the democratic process had a chance to work, I would at least know it was a fair fight and would respect the outcome.
Roe v. Wade was an act of judicial abuse by an activist court seeking to impose its morality on an issue. It circumvented the normal legal and democratic process in this country and cut off debate, and so did a grave injustice to our country that needs to be redressed.
I know that we live in a country where, as proven by Name Withheld’s case, abortion is almost necessitated by a culture that supports pre-marital sex and irresponsible decision making. Women should not have to bear the brunt of this burden alone and much has to be done on a personal, extra-legal plane in order to remake our society into one which cherishes sexuality and welcomes new life.
Until that time, at least give us all the chance to truly debate and decide on the issue.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.