Today’s episode, oh so many topics to choose from: Ukraine, gun control, the coming midterms… but I’m going to focus this episode on perhaps one of the most monumental moments in modern American history: The Supreme Court overturning its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on a 6-3 vote on Dobbs v. Jackson. The 49-year Roe precedent legalized abortion on-demand across the US, and the Dobbs decision, while not making abortion illegal, returned decisions on abortion policy to the state. Effectively, Dobbs is a decision in favor of federalism and the division of power between state and federal levels of government. It’s not necessarily a statement on the morality of abortion, but it is a statement on whether or not an abortion is a woman’s civil right requiring federal protection (the ruling is an emphatic “no”).
In this episode, I’m going evaluate several questions related to the Dobbs ruling and abortion more broadly. There is a LOT of misinformation/misinterpretation on this ruling out in the media ecosystem, so I think a little Q&A clarification may be in order.
Main topic: Responding to the Roe decision
Before we dive into specifics I want to be fully transparent on where I’m coming from on the abortion issue: I’m a Christian who believes that human being are created in the image of God, which is what imbues every human life with dignity and rights from the moment of conception. I’m a registered Republican, in part because of the GOP’s consistent friendliness to the pro-life position (though not always supportive of its policy objectives). I truly believe that how a society treats its youngest and most vulnerable members is indicative of its moral health, and America’s celebration, not just support, of abortion is as dark a stain on its national soul as the sin of slavery, or abuse of Native Americans.
So, I’m pro-life, and I celebrate the overturning of the Roe precedent. HOWEVER,
- I recognize that this ruling and the abortion restriction laws in numerous states will create burdens for individuals and families. I’m a parent, I understand the life alteration that having a child brings with it. So, my prayer is that families, friends, churches and employers who have women with unplanned or crisis pregnancies in their midst will extend the grace, love, and material support that these women need.
- In the best of circumstances, pregnancy, childbirth, and raising a child is hard work. In many ways, it’s some of the best work a person can do, but it’s a roller coaster. Overturning a bad precedent doesn’t change or eliminate our society’s moral responsibility at the individual and institutional level to assist in the flourishing of new mothers and their children.
- Pro-choice opponents of this ruling are watching for the pro-life movement to fail at this point of care for expectant mothers (more on this below), and that must not happen.
- To shift from a women’s health infrastructure that supports and aids in the destruction of human lives to one that focuses on the health and flourishing of human life is a heavy lift. States that consider themselves “pro-life” must be ready to pick up that burden at the policy level.
OK, that’s all the preamble, let’s get to the main points. I’ve structured these as a series of questions that I’ll ask and answer based on the misinformation, misunderstanding, and mischaracterization of this issue that I’ve seen or heard over the last several days:
- Is abortion illegal now?
- What recourse do women seeking abortions in restrictive states have?
- Why would the Supreme Court reverse a precedent a majority of Americans support?
- What does this mean for other major precedents?
- Where do we go from here?
Conversation starters
Now that states are going to be the primary agents responsible for the abortion issue, what kind of policies ought they pursue to facilitate the flourishing of new mothers and their unborn children, and should state governments even be the primary agents facilitating that flourishing?
The spoken and written word (podcasts and reading)
Articles
- The Dobbs ruling (all 213 pages of it!)
- Vox.com, “How Blue Cities in Red State are resisting abortion bans”
- The Gospel Coalition, “When the Mob Shows up the Monday After Roe”
- Daily Signal, “Welcome to Post-Roe World. Now, Real Work Begins for Pro-Life Activists.”
- Axios, “White House Warns of “Dangerous Ramifications” to Using Federal Lands for Abortion Care”
Podcasts
- TTP Podcast, Episodes 19-23 cover the Constitution if you’d like to brush up on the role of the Supreme Court and the distinctions between civil liberties and civil rights.
The last word
Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.
An even more glaring deficiency was Roe’s failure to justify the critical distinction it drew between pre- and post-viability abortions. See id., at 163. The arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roe’s central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion. The most obvious problem with any such argument is that viability has changed over time and is heavily dependent on factors—such as medical advances and the availability of quality medical care—that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus.
From page 5 of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson