Thursday, 9 Mar 2006
By Andy Nevis
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the new South Dakota law banning all abortions except those necessary to save a woman’s life. The controversy has not just been between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, as we would expect, but also among those who support the sanctity of all human life.
Those supporting the new law claim that the time is ripe to once again challenge Roe. It has been over a decade since it was last considered by the Supreme Court, and since that time the membership of that court has changed significantly. It is by no means a certainty that the new court will overturn the ruling, but why not give it a try?
Those abortion opponents against the law are afraid of taking too much of a risk. If the Supreme Court hears the case and does not overturn Roe, it could be many years or even decades before the court hears it again. Instead, they argue, we should push measures like Parental Notification and making sure that a woman is aware of the pain being incurred on the unborn child. Then we can “chip away” at Roe vs. Wade and eventually it will be reversed.
It could often be said that sometimes your heart and your brain disagree on an issue. Your feelings pull you strongly in one direction, but once you start to think about it you swing the other way. This is one such issue for me.
My heart really likes this new law. Certainly I support anything that helps to stop abortion as soon as possible. About 1.3 million unborn children are needlessly killed every year because of it. So if we wait five more years for a better shot of overturning Roe, 6,500,000 human beings will die. Future scientists, lawyers, teachers, and perhaps even a President won’t get the chance to grace the earth and prove their glory.
But after that initial reaction, I began thinking critically about this new law and the real chances that it has of doing anything positive. The conclusion that I reached was that it is extremely unlikely that this will have any long term benefit, and it may even hurt us.
Yes, the Supreme Court has drastically changed in membership since the court last ruled directly on Roe vs. Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. But in terms of ideology, it has really not. Let me explain.
When Roe was affirmed in 1992, it was on a 5 to 4 vote. Those voting in favor were Justices Stevens, O’Conner, Souter, Kennedy, and Blackwell. Those against and thus in favor of overturning were Justices Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas.
Shortly after the Casey decision, Blackwell and White retired and were replaced by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. If you believe that either of those two are going to overturn Roe, then you have a larger imagination than Finny from the novel A Separate Peace (Finny believed, among other things, that WWII was invented by old men merely to keep the youth under control.) So up until this past year, we can assume that there was a 6-3 majority in favor of Roe vs. Wade.
Then last year, Rehnquist died and O’Conner retired. They were replaced by John Roberts and Sam Alito, respectively. Since Rehnquist was already anti-Roe, the most that we can hope to gain from this is a one vote advantage.
At the present time, there are just not the votes on the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. At best, it is probably 5 to 4 in affirmation. Of course, there is always the chance that a Justice could switch sides or a liberal justice may retire, but it would be foolish to count on it.
And plenty of harm could come to the pro-life movement is Roe is reconsidered by the court but affirmed once again. If it takes up a controversial issue like this, it does usually not hear it again for many years.
If we are rejected here, it could be years or even decades before we have another chance. Tens of millions of babies could die in the meantime. That would really be a tragedy.
So while I do understand and kind of empathize with the decision of the state of South Dakota to ban abortions, I am not sure it is the best way to achieve our goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade.
Instead, we should work to pass laws that do not directly attack Roe but do place restrictions on abortion. As shown by the recent decision of the Supreme Court to uphold parental notification, it is clear that most of these will be upheld. Then, as soon as possible, we can use the precedent of those cases to ask the court to reverse Roe vs. Wade.
But in the meantime, we need to go with our brains, not our hearts.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Such as accomodating for women who are victims of rape or incest.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Nice try Dan
March 9th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
That was me.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Dan, I still don’t understand your reasoning. What are your reasons for being “no fan” of abortion, and, how are those laid to the wayside just because of the circumstances of conception? As I said, either an unborn baby is a person that should be protected under the law, or it is is not. Now, if it is not a person, but just human tissue, then abortion is just a medical procedure. Why would you be opposed to a medical procedure? Or, if an unborn baby is a person, then why would the circumstances of conception lessen the worth of a person, and allow them to be killed?
Really, I just don’t understand. Can you please explain?
March 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
If you were thinking with your brain, then you would have read the the research that indicates the lack of any real impact notification laws have.
The idea of chipping away until it falls seems pathetically liberal and ridiculous to me. I’m not saying you are one, not at all, I just don’t agree with the logic that would solve anything. This is either a good cause or a bad one, so let’s not even discuss how we can best manipulate the court to pass it.
I think this law tests the sincerity of a lot of liberals, especially the ones from San Fran. How can a city pass a law that blatantly contradicts the 2nd ammendment but disagree with a law challenging a right established only through judicial precedent.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
“If you were thinking with your brain, then you would have read the the research that indicates the lack of any real impact notification laws have.”
It doesn’t matter what impact parental notification laws have. Their purpose is not to decrease the number of abortions, but to make sure that parents are involved.
If the number of abortions go down as a result, then great. But that’s not the primary purpose.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Ryan, the most up-to-date research says that parental notification does reduce abortions. Have you read this yet?
“Among 15-year-olds, abortions declined by 11 percent.
Among 16-year-olds, abortions declined by 20 percent.
Among 17-year-olds, abortions declined by 16 percent.”
Are you using your brain, may I ask?
March 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Are you?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/06/MNGHBHJ48V1.DTL
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1134995.php/Parental_notification%60s_effect_mixed
http://www.healthcentral.com/newsdetail/408/1507877.html
March 10th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Ryan, if you are using your brain, you will notice that those three articles only reference and reword a New York Times article, which I read, incidentally, in the first day it came out.
But since the New York Times came out with its story, a new study has also come out. This study done by researchers at Baruch College at City University of New York looked in-depth at abortion and minors in the state of Texas, “comparing the rate changes among minors 15 to 17 years of age at the time of conception (i.e., those who were subject to the law) with those of teens 18 years of age at the time of conception (i.e., those who were not subject to the law).” It found that, “The Texas parental notification law was associated with a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years of age.”
This is what the New York Times article said: “In Texas, the rate fell after a notification law went into effect, but not as fast as it did in the years before the law.”
Do you see the problem? Instead of showing the important difference between 17 and 18 year-olds, the New York Times simply compares the years before with the years after. In other words, the New York Times did not limit the variables. There could be many other reasons why the rates of abortions could change from year to year. However, as the Baruch study correctly showed, there was a large difference in the rates of women affected by the law and not affected by the law, during the same time period, proving that the parental notification had an effect.
So who are you going to trust? The New York Times which conveniently leaves out important information, or an actual research project which accurately limits its variables?
Thus, when you say you are “using your brain”, you are actually, in this case, blindly following one of the most liberal newspapers in the country.
March 11th, 2006 at 2:51 am
1. Where are the data? All I see is a synopsis in the link you provide.
2. Did you read the actual study?
3. Does the study contradict the results from other states? If so, how, and why?
March 11th, 2006 at 9:08 am
SAcott L:
If you wish to read the full text of the article, click on the link at the bottom of the page you were just on. It’s very simple, but expensive (you have to pay 10 dollars for the one article). I have already explained how the Baruch college study of the parental notification contradicts the New York Times article.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
[…] Going With Your Brain Over Heart: Katelyn Sills: SAcott L: If you wish to read the full text of the article, click on… […]