On Sunday, supporters and foes of Roe v. Wade alike observed the 33rd anniversary of the monumental Supreme Court decision – one that has defined recent Congressional hearings on President Bush’s nominations to the high court. Abortion-rights advocates in Eugene celebrated freedom of choice and women’s rights, which have become increasingly associated with the presence of legal abortion. Abortion opponents marched in San Francisco, Washington D.C., and an array of other major cities, touting a doctrine based on the inherent value of life.
It’s no surprise that the current U.S. political environment has produced such strong positions on both sides of the Roe v. Wade debate. When questions of religion and ethics are on the line, it is often doubtful that a comfortable consensus will ever be achieved.
Despite national strife about what constitutes life and what defines murder, we should remember that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was based on one American value – privacy. Supported by the Fourth Amendment’s right to personal sanctity and the 14th Amendment’s right to personal liberty, the Supreme Court eventually mandated that in the first trimester, a woman may choose to end her pregnancy. The Roe v. Wade decision did not try to answer the question of when life begins. Rather, the court did its job by critically applying the values of the U.S. Constitution to an individual case.
This sound ruling has, for more than 30 years, found itself at the forefront of much political debate. The discourse has escalated during the last year, as the court experiences a potential major overhaul in the ideology of its ruling judges. Although some may argue that the threat of a Roe v. Wade re-ruling is just rhetoric, the fact remains that with John Roberts and Samuel Alito (or any other conservative judge Bush might nominate) on the court, one Supreme Court decision could set a new precedent on the legal or constitutional question of abortion. The de-legalization of abortion might not be a splash of red ink across the Roe v. Wade decision; it may simply be one ruling on one case which acknowledges the inherent illegality or unconstitutionality of choosing an abortion.
Further, regardless of whether the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion rights are and will continue to be on myriad state chopping blocks. Just this week it was reported by the Los Angeles Times that at least four states have introduced legislation banning abortion except in cases where a mother’s life is vulnerable to “substantial permanent impairment.” It is unclear from the legislation who will determine the definition of “substantial,” and how.
As of now, states cannot ignore the Roe v. Wade decision, and such anti-abortion legislation should be found unconstitutional according to the ruling. Yet if individual states decide to fight for their rights to limit abortion, it is more than possible that the current Supreme Court will side with the states, rather than look to the precedent set 33 years ago. Many states also enforce such harsh limits upon abortion, including waiting periods and parental notification laws, that women already find themselves unable to access their constitutional right to abortion.
The potentiality of abortion as completely illegal is not an empty threat. With the Supreme Court’s current ideological leanings, it is certainly possible that Roe v. Wade will be tested before the next presidential administration. If the United States does not wish to take a step back in time with regard to privacy rights, prominent politicians should offer legislation as well as promises that a woman’s right to choose will always be safe.