Assessing Abortion Anew

How the shifting political landscape is changing the argument on abortion.


For the first time in five years the Supreme Court will hear a case involving access to abortion. Slated for the next session of the court, the case will determine the legality of a New Hampshire law mandating parental notification before a minor can receive an abortion. The Supreme Court has traditionally barely upheld Roe v Wade—the controversial 1973 decision that legalized abortion—but now with the nomination of John Roberts to the court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and questions about how long Chief Justice William Rehnquist can continue to serve, the debate over the viability of Roe v Wade is raging once again. Both Pro Life and Pro Choice advocates give the impression to the general public that overturning Roe would mean an immediate and absolute end to abortion. The reality however is more complex.

“If two liberals are replaced [on the Supreme Court] the vote could change,” said Francis Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice. “Roe v Wade is in serious danger.” Others aren’t quite as dramatic as Kissling. Glen Stassen a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, pointed out that if the court was going to act against Roe v. Wade they were more likely to do things in increments. “They will build up a tradition to base their ruling on,” said Stassen. “We will see more regulations like waiting periods and parental consent passed over a long period of time rather than one sweeping gesture.”

Lana Jacobs, executive director of Consistent Life, a coalition supporting a “consistent ethic of life” from conception to natural death, is skeptical of the political viability of overturning the precedent. “It won’t happen because there are too many financial and political interests to keep it in place,” she says. “Reversing Roe v. Wade would be political suicide for any party, even the Republican Party.”

Posture vs. Policy
Dennis O’Brien agrees that we won’t see Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion made criminal anytime soon. O’Brien, the President Emeritus of the University of Rochester and ardently pro-life, also believes that trying to repeal the Supreme Court ruling is a fruitless endeavor when attempting to save unborn lives.

In a recent article in America magazine, O’Brien criticized the use of words like “murder” and genocide” from pro-life activists and called attention to the unclear goals of the larger Pro-Life Movement regarding criminalization. He pointed out that much of the literature about abortion from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) leaves their policy on criminalization unclear.

O’Brien believes that overturning of Roe v. Wade will lead to a situation where abortions are not eliminated but simply more expensive, which will drive the poor to seek out highly dangerous “back-alley” abortions.

“We need to demand that the pro-choice movement start asking whether or not all choices are right. An action is moral because of what they choose, not just the choice itself.”

Concentrating on criminalizing abortion is also counter-productive according to O’Brien because it eliminates any possibility of dialogue. “Right now the argument is so
focused around legality that the Pro-Choice movement sees any restriction as wrong, even some that they really probably think would be good and prudent,” he says. “We need to move the argument away from legality so we can begin to work together on the issue.”

O’Brien points out that most people, including most of those in the Pro-Choice movement, believe that sex-selection abortions (abortions performed because the parents would prefer to have a child of the other sex) are reprehensible. However, because they fear that any regulations against abortion will cause a slippery slope that will ultimately lead to abortion being criminalized, they will not support a regulatory law against sex selection abortions even though they may personally believe it to be immoral.

“We need to demand that the pro-choice movement start asking whether or not all choices are right. An action is moral because of what they choose, not just the choice itself.”

Looking For Answers Beyond the Law
One approach to changing the abortion debate is to shift the focus of the discussion to results instead of absolutes, and Tim Ryan, a Democratic Congressman from Ohio, is trying to do just that. His 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive proposal that, when fully funded and implemented, he claims can reduce the number of abortions in America by 95 percent over the next 10 years. “95-10 sprang from listening to both extremes debate the issue and realizing what was missing,” he says. “[Neither side was] trying to actually solve the problem.”

Ryan says that 95-10 is already garnering bi-partisan support, since pro-choice politicians and activists know the initiative will make no attempt to recriminalize. The bill can appeal to both sides: It has a section requesting parental notifications for minors and requiring that insurance companies cover contraception.

More importantly, says Ryan, “This is the first time ever that healthcare for a child has been mentioned in a bill about abortion.” The initiative would increase funds for State Children’s Health Insurance and ensure full funding for the underfinanced WIC, a federal program that provided assistance to low-income mothers and children. According to Ryan, “We are trying to move this argument to something more than criminalization or not.”

The buzz 95-10 has received might not have been possible before last November. Ryan, a Catholic and Pro-Life Democrat, said that his position on abortion did go against the grain co mpared to most of his party. However, he said that more people in the party are becoming open to the ideas in his plan. Indeed, Howard Dean, president of the Democratic National Committee, allowed Ryan and Democrats for Life of America to use the DNC national headquarters to hold the press conference concerning 95-10.

“It and we are ready now,” said Ryan. “No matter what you think, abortions are a tragedy. They are a trauma to women and a bad hallmark of a society.”