This is a completely spurious argument "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It obviously did take a right away. It declared that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion. So on the face of it is false.
The intended meaning, that this right was not given up, but that "this is literally Power to the People." The incorrect idea here is that the exposing a right to democracy means the right is not taken away. However, this is not what a right is. A Constitutional right is meant to *prevent* the tyranny of the majority from removing our freedoms. Exposing a right to the tyranny of the majority can result in the loss of that right.
One role of the Supreme Court is to protect these rights from laws and the application of laws in such a way that the use the power of representative majorities to remove these rights from individuals. They have abdicated their duty in this case.
You don’t make a persuasive argument. There is no such enumerated right in the Constitution. Perhaps one can argue it is an unenumerated right. One can also argue that there is not, which is what the SCOTUS just determined. If you want there be such an explicit right, there is a well established procedure for amending the Constitution. This is a fact, not my opinion.
Probably not as well as I should have, apologies. I still feel it’s fair to conclude that Dobbs did “take away” an unenumerated established by Roe. Obviously each side feels the other was wrong. But as a legal matter, Dobbs did cause a legal right to cease to exist.
No worries. And I don't want to get caught up debating words, but, I have read a lot on this issue, from lawyers, some of them constitutional lawyers, and 1) the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); and 2) the new Dobbs decision is much more sound. So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right, then the next option, if there is enough support, is an amendment to the Constitution, which we know how to do.
> the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); the new Dobbs decision is much more sound.
This is irrelevant to whether people had that right. There are a lot of poorly worded parts of the Constitution and case law, the rights still exist from both de facto and de jure perspectives.
> So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right,
It is obviously an unenumerated right, in the sense that it is right people can have and did have, even if it is not judged to be a right that is protected by the Constitution. Rights and Constitutional Rights are very different things. You seems to be making a false equivalence between the two. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization entirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.
I mean, I’ve certainly read many legal scholars who don’t think Dobbs was well-reasoned either ;) But I agree that if a vast majority of Americans feel that medical privacy or bodily autonomy are rights worth enumerating, then we should do it. And I admit that a significant minority do not feel those are rights.
The constitution doesn't mention women. Women could not vote in eighteenth- century America. In practice, tolerance for abortion was much higher than it is now. See Leslie J. Rogan's book, When Abortion was a Crime
Which argument? My primary point, that the author was incorrect to state "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It took away de facto rights. People that had that right no longer do. It took away de jure rights, because the interpretation of the law was changed. In either sense, you offer nothing to defend the author's statement.
Furthermore, my secondary point was that exposing a right to democratic process can result in the loss of a right. You offer nothing to contradict that.
You are confusing the idea that the de jure interpretation has changed with the idea that the right itself never existed.
Thank you for a well written and logical article. I agree with returning power to the people and the states. Your ability to change a state representative is much greater and easier than the entrenched corrupt National level representative. That's why Pelosi, Waters, and others from both sides of the isle are never replaced. Spending millions on aThe 250K job? It's about power not representation.
The ability to move is a major point. Those fleeing NY, CA and any other state is doing so based on elector policies. Don't like it, 49 other states available. Not so for much of the world.
People need to get off the couch and get involved with actually doing something to make changes they might want. Our country was not built by people sitting and waiting for the Federal Government to do things.
This decision fits the mold of power to the people.
Thanks for your thoughts. Dobbs was the first SCOTUS decision that i actually read in total rather than rely on what others say. On balance I disagree with you. Leaving it up to the states is a form of choice, but at the state level, but not at the personal level. For someone who thinks that abortion is murder, that won't do. It also won't do for someone who thinks that abortion is a fundamental right. I agree with you that precedent can't always carry the day, otherwise we would be stuck with Plessy vs. Ferguson. However, Plessy was overturned because views on race changed over time. However, nothing has changed since Roe in 1973. In my view, the fact that the abortion issue is as contentious as ever is reason NOT to overrule Roe. Today's court has no more information than the 1973 court or the 1994 (?) Casey decision. To me Roe was imperfect, but probably the best one can do for such a difficult issue.
A lot has changed since 1973. Abortion rates have declined, women have the morning after pill, lots of contraceptives, over the counter kits that predict ovulation, and the ability to confirm pregnancy before a period has been missed. Then there are the many advances in ultrasound/testing to track the development of the fetus and tests that have shown the fetus feels pain. Women have more information and options than they did in 1973. BUT…..
Would Dobbs have happened if the idea to push abortion to its furthest limits didn’t happen first? Do those who want abortion to be an option, even as the mother is being rolled into labor and delivery, ever think they can find a middle ground with those who think abortion should never happen, ever? Maybe those two groups shouldn’t be part of the conversation since there is no compromise for either, ever. The only place for peace on this issue and many others is in the middle. Abortion with limits.
Meanwhile, threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices, demonstrating at the private homes of our elected officials, stirring up passions by telling Americans that contraceptive rights and same sex marriage are next is equivalent to provoking insurrection.
Hi BCR, I acknowledge the changes you describe, but it has not changed the overall debate and does not really inform on the Court's decision. The technological advances strengthen Robert's stated views that viability is a moving target, and so one can use that information to decide whether a 15 week cut off is appropriate. But it does not provide information to overturn Roe. I also agree that threatening the justices is unconscionable. But as far as worrying about contraception and same sex marriage, Thomas was quite specific in his concurrence that those issues should be revisited based on the Dobbs decision. The concern did not come from nowhere.
Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.
Roe was sloppily written, leaving the door open for this current debacle. It was the late term, anytime, last minute, partial birth, “make the baby comfortable” mess that got us here. Personally, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to vote on the issue and now I will, so will everyone else. My state will vote to have abortions whenever, however and wherever, and I will have to live with that because I’m not moving.
That said, I too wasn’t happy with how far Thomas went in his opinion, suggesting contraception and same sex marriage also be revisited, particularly since the parties involved all have voices, and because it muddied the water. Now everyone is setting their hair on fire and both parties are using it to demonize the other. However, one could argue Thomas is saying voters should have had the opportunity to have a say. (We all voted on legalIzing marijuana. Can’t we handle the big stuff?) All of these controversial issues usually progress towards sensible ends.
Why not let the Constitution work the way it’s supposed to. Issues not specifically spelled out in the document are voted on by the states. Had our elected leaders and media responsibly reported on why we are here and how we move forward in a civilized way, we’d all be better off. Everyone needs to try harder to find common ground and lump some of the things they don’t like.
I think the issue from the side of those who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc, makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Their side won decisively when the supreme court “legislated from the bench”. The other side similarly lost decisively. Therefore, even though one might agree that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the past, by making things “right” again, if that person is in the former category they have to deal with the rollback of what was thought to be a definitive win. Conversely, for the latter category it’s a universal win, both in terms of their opinion on those rights and the integrity of our institutions. It’s never easy to stand up for the integrity of institutions if the result of that is losing a “right” that you support. Therefore I think it’s very important for those who are for abortion and these other issues, but admit Roe was wrongly decided, to be given all the respect for standing by their principles even when it doesn’t benefit their “side”.
Thank you for recognizing both sides of this issue. As someone who spent years pro-choice before changing my mind, I truly appreciate that. Abortion rights appear very different to a person depending on ones worldview and almost always bring strong reactions.
It can be hard to remember that someone who disagrees with you actually means well and wants the world to be a better place too. We live in a country that allows us to disagree on what a better world looks like as well as the means of getting there.
Thank you to everyone at FAIR for bringing humanity back into public discourse. We may not agree, but we can respect each other and recognize each other's humanity.
Thoughtful piece here. You can’t take away a right that never existed, as even legal scholars who are in favor of creating a “right to abortion” recognize it was essentially conjured out of thin air in this instance.
As far as an eventual “critical mass of agreement” on abortion, unfortunately, I think the recognition of human rights for all human beings will indeed take several generations to sort out. In the meantime, this is the best possible solution -- allow the people of each state to decide what they can live with in regards to killing children.
"An obvious one, if it’s important enough to you, is the ability to move to a state that better fits your culture, sensibilities, and nuance." This statement struck me as out of touch. For most women (perhaps the vast majority of women) seeking or needing a abortion, this is not a viable option for economic and other reasons.
I am disappointed that FAIR chose to publish a piece that ignores history, biology, and constitutional law.
If you want to "achieve unity" on abortion, go back to 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. The opinion was not especially controversial at the time. The only real opposition came from Catholic officials, who were opposed to abortion for the same reason they were opposed to birth control. Actual Catholic women were more likely at the time to get abortions because using birth control was a sin.
The anti-abortion movement (I refuse to call it pro-life) was a deliberate creation of the new religious right. You can read Frank Schaeffer's account, or reporting based on that (e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480). The movement has flourished based on misinformation about women's health, on deceptive Crisis Pregnancy centers, and has finally succeeded by packing the Supreme Court with conservative Catholics who lied to Congress about upholding settled rulings.
Far from strengthening our institutions, the current Supreme Court has cast doubts on its own legitimacy and has thrown the law into a state of confusion. If the Court is going to rely on its biased and incorrect reading of history to overturn precedent, is anything secure?
And what is Shupe's purpose in ending the piece with his attempt to engage Planned Parenthood volunteers in the middle of a demonstration involving late term abortions? Roe v Wade did not legalize late term abortions, which are a tiny percentage of all abortions and done for serious medical issues. If he really cares about engaging the issues, there are more productive times and places.
I suggest that you read about Bernard Nathanson. He was an abortionist and co-founder of NARAL who was integral to the pro-abortion movement at the time of Roe. Once fetal ultrasound became more widely available, he started to have grave doubts about his pro-abortion position and he eventually switched to a pro-life position. He came clean about all of the lies the pro-abortion movement told, including the attacks on the Catholic Church. They knew that Americans from all walks of life were pro-life, including agnostics and atheists, but they decided to vilify the Catholic Church because they knew it would be an easy target. Nathanson also came clean about how the pro-abortion movement used feminists. Larry Lader was a believer in population control but was not getting any traction on abortion rights using population control arguments so he decided to persuade feminists, who at the time, were not pursuing abortion rights. Lader didn't really care about feminist causes, he just used them. Historically, feminists had been pro-life and pro-sexual integrity as means of reproductive control. Nathanson also told the public about how the pro-abortion movement simply made up the number of women who were suffering from botched back-alley abortions, inflating them greatly. It's worth noting that even now, many botched abortions go unreported because doctors and Planned Parenthood don't want to be held liable for them, and women often feel too ashamed to pursue any justice. According to Bernard Nathanson, they simply moved the back alley to the front.
To clarify a few misconceptions: artificial birth control is not allowed by the Catholic Church, but Natural Family Planning (NFP)is allowed. NFP is just as effective as artificial birth control and healthier for women than the hormones in the pill, so it's inaccurate to say that the Catholic Church does not allow birth control. It's also not true that the CC opposes abortion for the same reasons it opposes birth control. The Catholic Church recognizes the biological reality that a human life begins at fertilization and teaches that it is morally wrong to end that human life. On the other hand, the Catholic Church opposes artificial birth control for many reasons, some relating to teleology and the recognition that separating sex from it's procreative purpose has significantly negative consequences for our culture, and especially for women. Just look at how prevalent porn and hook-up culture are now. To really understand the Catholic view of sexuality, one needs to read "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II.
There were state laws against abortion in at least 49 states at the time Roe was decided. How does this square with the idea that it wasn’t controversial?
The abortion bans were passed before I was born. They were promoted by medical doctors who wanted to take business away from midwives. I would have to research the full story.
It's a good habit to develop some compensation for confirmation bias. One thing I strive to do is to apply the same standards of skepticism to findings which confirm my preferences, as to those which would disconfirm them. I don't always succeed, but I do the best I can and I keep checking myself.
A concept like "abortion bans were passed in 49 states by medical doctors who wanted to take business away from midwives" deserves some skepticism, even if it put the white hats and black hats in emotionally satisfying places. How exactly does banning abortions (and creating more births) take business away from midwives, and give more business to the doctors (who could otherwise perform abortions)? It frankly doesn't make any sense to me on first pass - which would make me hesitant to adopt such a pat story without good balanced evidence. With good evidence, of course, I will accept even things which are counter-intuitive so I'm not saying we should always go with our first impulse - only that purported societal dynamics which appear to make more sense as reinforcement of a narrative than as logical outcomes deserve to be well researched before being believed.
I gather you are not familiar with the history of medicine in the US.
After the draft of the Dobbs decision was leaded, historians lined up to criticize Alito's misuse of history. This seems to be the standard consensus of real historians:
--Before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women.
--The first anti-abortion advocates in the United States were male physicians who sought to make abortion illegal to push out competition from midwives and female healers.
--The idea that fetuses have rights and those rights trump those of living women and girls is a relatively new concept, historians say.
The text of this article quotes Kimberly Hamlin, PhD, professor of history and global and intercultural studies at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
Are you saying that intelligentsia and religious leaders are representative of the average American? If so, I would disagree. If not, then why would we listen to them any more on this issue than the various other issues they’re out of step with the general public on? Let’s not conflate intelligentsia and religious leaders with “the people”
I am saying that in 1973, the attitude about abortion was in general, that it should be allowed in some or all cases. Average Americans might say they were opposed to abortion, but if a woman was inconveniently pregnant, she was told to "take care of it" which was the euphemism of the day for abortion. There were people opposed to abortion because they were opposed to sex, and they thought that pregnancy was an appropriate punishment for having sex outside of wedlockm and there were people who thought the population should be larger. There were no general non-Catholic proponents of the idea that a fertilized egg or an embryo or even a pre-viable fetus was a human being entitled to life.
Exactly, this is a gift to all sides, correcting a former Judicial Branch over-reach /power grab from long ago. States rights are important and people on all sides of this debate can work hard in their state to have their voices heard and their advocacy / agency should indeed result in legislation at the state level. Isn't that what everyone should want?
restored rights. Read it. The first point, "Between five (5) and six (6) weeks' gestation, an unborn human being's heart begins beating," has nothing to do with fetal survival. The heart can go on beating long after the brain dies--and the woman gestating this dead, but still moving fetus is then endangered until the heart stops beating--at which point she is not infrequently in sepsis.
This bill removed rights from women; this bill implicitly defines women as gestators or incubators--breeders.
This assessment seems almost non sequitur when reading the actual bill you linked. The bill itself restricts abortion starting at 15 weeks, which suggests that they themselves don’t believe that heartbeat alone is enough. Otherwise, they’d restrict abortion at 5 weeks, right? They also specifically state that even after 15 weeks there are still exceptions for the health of the mother, so in a heart-beating brain-dead situation that endangered the mother an exception would likely be made. Therefore, based on reading the document you linked, I don’t believe your fears are founded.
By the way, at five weeks--at six weeks and often beyond--many women have no idea they're pregnant. Especially women with irregular periods. Follow recent accounts in the NY Times and elsewhere to see the dangers already imposed on women's health.
Organiker notes that the restrictions in Dobbs start at 15 weeks, not 5 weeks. So I think we are agreed that 5 (or 6) weeks would be too early, in part for the reasons you mention. But Dobbs was not about 5 (or 6) weeks.
Thank you for a well reasoned and well stated presentation on the real benefits of the Dobbs decision. Most reasonable thinking occurs in smaller groups where one can politely engage those who take a position opposite yours. The one thing lacking in our society currently is what’s I am doing right now: I am responding, encouraging, engaging and in a respectful and irenic manner.
With you I agree that this decision may force us to stop the social media definition of each side and actually meet and care about people who agree with you AND people who do not agree. That means taking the hysteria, anger, and short-term thinking out of our personal approach to others. Kind of like the old “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I hear that comes from a great Source!
The left has dominated the bench for decades, and used it to achieve political objectives at the expense of Constitutional integrity. Dobbs is about more than women’s “rights” to an abortion — it’s about the left being forced to sell and debate their agenda in the court of public opinion and to win support politically for their agenda if they are to achieve it. In purple states, I want to see Planned Parenthood and the like defend third trimester abortions as laws are debated. Had the left not been religiously devoted to this dogma, the will on the bench to overturn might have faded away. Instead, with public opinion squarely against these violent acts against the viable unborn, the bench had the fortitude to throw the entire Roe ruling out. And Thomas was willing to go even further by pointing out similarly flawed rulings with little grounding in the Constitution, despite their popular appeal. The issue of whether the Constitution is “a living document” which bends to the winds of the current times (the left’s view and basis for so desperately wanting to stack the bench) vs. a bedrock declaration that has to be amended through law (the originalist right’s view on the Constitution) is the far bigger battle that is brewing and could potentially tear this country apart.
This is a completely spurious argument "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It obviously did take a right away. It declared that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion. So on the face of it is false.
The intended meaning, that this right was not given up, but that "this is literally Power to the People." The incorrect idea here is that the exposing a right to democracy means the right is not taken away. However, this is not what a right is. A Constitutional right is meant to *prevent* the tyranny of the majority from removing our freedoms. Exposing a right to the tyranny of the majority can result in the loss of that right.
One role of the Supreme Court is to protect these rights from laws and the application of laws in such a way that the use the power of representative majorities to remove these rights from individuals. They have abdicated their duty in this case.
You don’t make a persuasive argument. There is no such enumerated right in the Constitution. Perhaps one can argue it is an unenumerated right. One can also argue that there is not, which is what the SCOTUS just determined. If you want there be such an explicit right, there is a well established procedure for amending the Constitution. This is a fact, not my opinion.
The Ninth Amendment explicitly states that rights do not have to be enumerated to exist. https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-constitution-dobbs-roe-ninth-amendment-framers-bill-of-rights-11657136465
Did you read my full comment?
Probably not as well as I should have, apologies. I still feel it’s fair to conclude that Dobbs did “take away” an unenumerated established by Roe. Obviously each side feels the other was wrong. But as a legal matter, Dobbs did cause a legal right to cease to exist.
No worries. And I don't want to get caught up debating words, but, I have read a lot on this issue, from lawyers, some of them constitutional lawyers, and 1) the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); and 2) the new Dobbs decision is much more sound. So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right, then the next option, if there is enough support, is an amendment to the Constitution, which we know how to do.
> the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); the new Dobbs decision is much more sound.
This is irrelevant to whether people had that right. There are a lot of poorly worded parts of the Constitution and case law, the rights still exist from both de facto and de jure perspectives.
> So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right,
It is obviously an unenumerated right, in the sense that it is right people can have and did have, even if it is not judged to be a right that is protected by the Constitution. Rights and Constitutional Rights are very different things. You seems to be making a false equivalence between the two. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization entirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.
I mean, I’ve certainly read many legal scholars who don’t think Dobbs was well-reasoned either ;) But I agree that if a vast majority of Americans feel that medical privacy or bodily autonomy are rights worth enumerating, then we should do it. And I admit that a significant minority do not feel those are rights.
The constitution doesn't mention women. Women could not vote in eighteenth- century America. In practice, tolerance for abortion was much higher than it is now. See Leslie J. Rogan's book, When Abortion was a Crime
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520387416/when-abortion-was-a-crime
Does the constitution mention men?
See this interesting commentary: https://www.thoughtco.com/constitution-sex-discrimination-3529459
You might say the constitution presumes men.
Which argument? My primary point, that the author was incorrect to state "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It took away de facto rights. People that had that right no longer do. It took away de jure rights, because the interpretation of the law was changed. In either sense, you offer nothing to defend the author's statement.
Furthermore, my secondary point was that exposing a right to democratic process can result in the loss of a right. You offer nothing to contradict that.
You are confusing the idea that the de jure interpretation has changed with the idea that the right itself never existed.
Thank you for a well written and logical article. I agree with returning power to the people and the states. Your ability to change a state representative is much greater and easier than the entrenched corrupt National level representative. That's why Pelosi, Waters, and others from both sides of the isle are never replaced. Spending millions on aThe 250K job? It's about power not representation.
The ability to move is a major point. Those fleeing NY, CA and any other state is doing so based on elector policies. Don't like it, 49 other states available. Not so for much of the world.
People need to get off the couch and get involved with actually doing something to make changes they might want. Our country was not built by people sitting and waiting for the Federal Government to do things.
This decision fits the mold of power to the people.
Again, great article.
Thanks for your thoughts. Dobbs was the first SCOTUS decision that i actually read in total rather than rely on what others say. On balance I disagree with you. Leaving it up to the states is a form of choice, but at the state level, but not at the personal level. For someone who thinks that abortion is murder, that won't do. It also won't do for someone who thinks that abortion is a fundamental right. I agree with you that precedent can't always carry the day, otherwise we would be stuck with Plessy vs. Ferguson. However, Plessy was overturned because views on race changed over time. However, nothing has changed since Roe in 1973. In my view, the fact that the abortion issue is as contentious as ever is reason NOT to overrule Roe. Today's court has no more information than the 1973 court or the 1994 (?) Casey decision. To me Roe was imperfect, but probably the best one can do for such a difficult issue.
A lot has changed since 1973. Abortion rates have declined, women have the morning after pill, lots of contraceptives, over the counter kits that predict ovulation, and the ability to confirm pregnancy before a period has been missed. Then there are the many advances in ultrasound/testing to track the development of the fetus and tests that have shown the fetus feels pain. Women have more information and options than they did in 1973. BUT…..
Would Dobbs have happened if the idea to push abortion to its furthest limits didn’t happen first? Do those who want abortion to be an option, even as the mother is being rolled into labor and delivery, ever think they can find a middle ground with those who think abortion should never happen, ever? Maybe those two groups shouldn’t be part of the conversation since there is no compromise for either, ever. The only place for peace on this issue and many others is in the middle. Abortion with limits.
Meanwhile, threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices, demonstrating at the private homes of our elected officials, stirring up passions by telling Americans that contraceptive rights and same sex marriage are next is equivalent to provoking insurrection.
Hi BCR, I acknowledge the changes you describe, but it has not changed the overall debate and does not really inform on the Court's decision. The technological advances strengthen Robert's stated views that viability is a moving target, and so one can use that information to decide whether a 15 week cut off is appropriate. But it does not provide information to overturn Roe. I also agree that threatening the justices is unconscionable. But as far as worrying about contraception and same sex marriage, Thomas was quite specific in his concurrence that those issues should be revisited based on the Dobbs decision. The concern did not come from nowhere.
Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.
Roe was sloppily written, leaving the door open for this current debacle. It was the late term, anytime, last minute, partial birth, “make the baby comfortable” mess that got us here. Personally, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to vote on the issue and now I will, so will everyone else. My state will vote to have abortions whenever, however and wherever, and I will have to live with that because I’m not moving.
That said, I too wasn’t happy with how far Thomas went in his opinion, suggesting contraception and same sex marriage also be revisited, particularly since the parties involved all have voices, and because it muddied the water. Now everyone is setting their hair on fire and both parties are using it to demonize the other. However, one could argue Thomas is saying voters should have had the opportunity to have a say. (We all voted on legalIzing marijuana. Can’t we handle the big stuff?) All of these controversial issues usually progress towards sensible ends.
Why not let the Constitution work the way it’s supposed to. Issues not specifically spelled out in the document are voted on by the states. Had our elected leaders and media responsibly reported on why we are here and how we move forward in a civilized way, we’d all be better off. Everyone needs to try harder to find common ground and lump some of the things they don’t like.
I think the issue from the side of those who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc, makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Their side won decisively when the supreme court “legislated from the bench”. The other side similarly lost decisively. Therefore, even though one might agree that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the past, by making things “right” again, if that person is in the former category they have to deal with the rollback of what was thought to be a definitive win. Conversely, for the latter category it’s a universal win, both in terms of their opinion on those rights and the integrity of our institutions. It’s never easy to stand up for the integrity of institutions if the result of that is losing a “right” that you support. Therefore I think it’s very important for those who are for abortion and these other issues, but admit Roe was wrongly decided, to be given all the respect for standing by their principles even when it doesn’t benefit their “side”.
Thank you for recognizing both sides of this issue. As someone who spent years pro-choice before changing my mind, I truly appreciate that. Abortion rights appear very different to a person depending on ones worldview and almost always bring strong reactions.
It can be hard to remember that someone who disagrees with you actually means well and wants the world to be a better place too. We live in a country that allows us to disagree on what a better world looks like as well as the means of getting there.
Thank you to everyone at FAIR for bringing humanity back into public discourse. We may not agree, but we can respect each other and recognize each other's humanity.
Thoughtful piece here. You can’t take away a right that never existed, as even legal scholars who are in favor of creating a “right to abortion” recognize it was essentially conjured out of thin air in this instance.
As far as an eventual “critical mass of agreement” on abortion, unfortunately, I think the recognition of human rights for all human beings will indeed take several generations to sort out. In the meantime, this is the best possible solution -- allow the people of each state to decide what they can live with in regards to killing children.
Well spoken. This is an attitude that is “fair for all”. We can be a united nation with diverse opinions.
The law before Griswold wasn’t anti-contraception, it was pro-rights for puritans!
The law before Lawrence wasn’t anti-homosexual, it was pro-rights for Christian purity!
The law before Obergefell wasn’t anti-marriage equality, it was pro-rights for homophobes!
We could do this all day. This post is deeply, deeply disappointing. Please try harder.
"An obvious one, if it’s important enough to you, is the ability to move to a state that better fits your culture, sensibilities, and nuance." This statement struck me as out of touch. For most women (perhaps the vast majority of women) seeking or needing a abortion, this is not a viable option for economic and other reasons.
"Winning people over instead of posting snarky memes."
I do wonder how many people have been "won over" to the other side by snarky memes....
I am disappointed that FAIR chose to publish a piece that ignores history, biology, and constitutional law.
If you want to "achieve unity" on abortion, go back to 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. The opinion was not especially controversial at the time. The only real opposition came from Catholic officials, who were opposed to abortion for the same reason they were opposed to birth control. Actual Catholic women were more likely at the time to get abortions because using birth control was a sin.
The anti-abortion movement (I refuse to call it pro-life) was a deliberate creation of the new religious right. You can read Frank Schaeffer's account, or reporting based on that (e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480). The movement has flourished based on misinformation about women's health, on deceptive Crisis Pregnancy centers, and has finally succeeded by packing the Supreme Court with conservative Catholics who lied to Congress about upholding settled rulings.
Far from strengthening our institutions, the current Supreme Court has cast doubts on its own legitimacy and has thrown the law into a state of confusion. If the Court is going to rely on its biased and incorrect reading of history to overturn precedent, is anything secure?
And what is Shupe's purpose in ending the piece with his attempt to engage Planned Parenthood volunteers in the middle of a demonstration involving late term abortions? Roe v Wade did not legalize late term abortions, which are a tiny percentage of all abortions and done for serious medical issues. If he really cares about engaging the issues, there are more productive times and places.
I suggest that you read about Bernard Nathanson. He was an abortionist and co-founder of NARAL who was integral to the pro-abortion movement at the time of Roe. Once fetal ultrasound became more widely available, he started to have grave doubts about his pro-abortion position and he eventually switched to a pro-life position. He came clean about all of the lies the pro-abortion movement told, including the attacks on the Catholic Church. They knew that Americans from all walks of life were pro-life, including agnostics and atheists, but they decided to vilify the Catholic Church because they knew it would be an easy target. Nathanson also came clean about how the pro-abortion movement used feminists. Larry Lader was a believer in population control but was not getting any traction on abortion rights using population control arguments so he decided to persuade feminists, who at the time, were not pursuing abortion rights. Lader didn't really care about feminist causes, he just used them. Historically, feminists had been pro-life and pro-sexual integrity as means of reproductive control. Nathanson also told the public about how the pro-abortion movement simply made up the number of women who were suffering from botched back-alley abortions, inflating them greatly. It's worth noting that even now, many botched abortions go unreported because doctors and Planned Parenthood don't want to be held liable for them, and women often feel too ashamed to pursue any justice. According to Bernard Nathanson, they simply moved the back alley to the front.
To clarify a few misconceptions: artificial birth control is not allowed by the Catholic Church, but Natural Family Planning (NFP)is allowed. NFP is just as effective as artificial birth control and healthier for women than the hormones in the pill, so it's inaccurate to say that the Catholic Church does not allow birth control. It's also not true that the CC opposes abortion for the same reasons it opposes birth control. The Catholic Church recognizes the biological reality that a human life begins at fertilization and teaches that it is morally wrong to end that human life. On the other hand, the Catholic Church opposes artificial birth control for many reasons, some relating to teleology and the recognition that separating sex from it's procreative purpose has significantly negative consequences for our culture, and especially for women. Just look at how prevalent porn and hook-up culture are now. To really understand the Catholic view of sexuality, one needs to read "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II.
Could you recommend a good book/resource that goes through what you said about Bernard Nathanson in more detail?
There were state laws against abortion in at least 49 states at the time Roe was decided. How does this square with the idea that it wasn’t controversial?
It wasn't controversial among most of the intelligentsia and religious leaders, outside of Catholics. Read up on the history. I watched it happen.
So who had passed the abortion bans among those 49 states, if you were there?
If we are going to criticize FAIR for not including all the history, we need to fairly present all the history, not just one side of it.
The abortion bans were passed before I was born. They were promoted by medical doctors who wanted to take business away from midwives. I would have to research the full story.
You definitely need to do more research.
It's a good habit to develop some compensation for confirmation bias. One thing I strive to do is to apply the same standards of skepticism to findings which confirm my preferences, as to those which would disconfirm them. I don't always succeed, but I do the best I can and I keep checking myself.
A concept like "abortion bans were passed in 49 states by medical doctors who wanted to take business away from midwives" deserves some skepticism, even if it put the white hats and black hats in emotionally satisfying places. How exactly does banning abortions (and creating more births) take business away from midwives, and give more business to the doctors (who could otherwise perform abortions)? It frankly doesn't make any sense to me on first pass - which would make me hesitant to adopt such a pat story without good balanced evidence. With good evidence, of course, I will accept even things which are counter-intuitive so I'm not saying we should always go with our first impulse - only that purported societal dynamics which appear to make more sense as reinforcement of a narrative than as logical outcomes deserve to be well researched before being believed.
Narratives are cheap; evidence is precious.
I gather you are not familiar with the history of medicine in the US.
After the draft of the Dobbs decision was leaded, historians lined up to criticize Alito's misuse of history. This seems to be the standard consensus of real historians:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-history-of-abortion-rights-in-the-u-s
quote from the link:
--Before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women.
--The first anti-abortion advocates in the United States were male physicians who sought to make abortion illegal to push out competition from midwives and female healers.
--The idea that fetuses have rights and those rights trump those of living women and girls is a relatively new concept, historians say.
The text of this article quotes Kimberly Hamlin, PhD, professor of history and global and intercultural studies at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
I haven't seen any alternative histories.
Are you saying that intelligentsia and religious leaders are representative of the average American? If so, I would disagree. If not, then why would we listen to them any more on this issue than the various other issues they’re out of step with the general public on? Let’s not conflate intelligentsia and religious leaders with “the people”
I am saying that in 1973, the attitude about abortion was in general, that it should be allowed in some or all cases. Average Americans might say they were opposed to abortion, but if a woman was inconveniently pregnant, she was told to "take care of it" which was the euphemism of the day for abortion. There were people opposed to abortion because they were opposed to sex, and they thought that pregnancy was an appropriate punishment for having sex outside of wedlockm and there were people who thought the population should be larger. There were no general non-Catholic proponents of the idea that a fertilized egg or an embryo or even a pre-viable fetus was a human being entitled to life.
When Roe was discussed, the opposition was largely Catholics nuns and priests who were more temperate in their opposition.
Exactly, this is a gift to all sides, correcting a former Judicial Branch over-reach /power grab from long ago. States rights are important and people on all sides of this debate can work hard in their state to have their voices heard and their advocacy / agency should indeed result in legislation at the state level. Isn't that what everyone should want?
Sure. Let's all relitigate contraception next, as Thomas advises. Why should anything ever be settled?
Women are going to die because of this, Jefferson.
I can't agree that Dobbs:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2018/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1510IN.htm
restored rights. Read it. The first point, "Between five (5) and six (6) weeks' gestation, an unborn human being's heart begins beating," has nothing to do with fetal survival. The heart can go on beating long after the brain dies--and the woman gestating this dead, but still moving fetus is then endangered until the heart stops beating--at which point she is not infrequently in sepsis.
This bill removed rights from women; this bill implicitly defines women as gestators or incubators--breeders.
This assessment seems almost non sequitur when reading the actual bill you linked. The bill itself restricts abortion starting at 15 weeks, which suggests that they themselves don’t believe that heartbeat alone is enough. Otherwise, they’d restrict abortion at 5 weeks, right? They also specifically state that even after 15 weeks there are still exceptions for the health of the mother, so in a heart-beating brain-dead situation that endangered the mother an exception would likely be made. Therefore, based on reading the document you linked, I don’t believe your fears are founded.
By the way, at five weeks--at six weeks and often beyond--many women have no idea they're pregnant. Especially women with irregular periods. Follow recent accounts in the NY Times and elsewhere to see the dangers already imposed on women's health.
Organiker notes that the restrictions in Dobbs start at 15 weeks, not 5 weeks. So I think we are agreed that 5 (or 6) weeks would be too early, in part for the reasons you mention. But Dobbs was not about 5 (or 6) weeks.
Long live Federalism.
Having this issue decided at the National level is lazy.
Constitutional amendments take work, so does enacting legislation at the state level. Those who are upset by this decision have some work to do.
Thank you for a well reasoned and well stated presentation on the real benefits of the Dobbs decision. Most reasonable thinking occurs in smaller groups where one can politely engage those who take a position opposite yours. The one thing lacking in our society currently is what’s I am doing right now: I am responding, encouraging, engaging and in a respectful and irenic manner.
With you I agree that this decision may force us to stop the social media definition of each side and actually meet and care about people who agree with you AND people who do not agree. That means taking the hysteria, anger, and short-term thinking out of our personal approach to others. Kind of like the old “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I hear that comes from a great Source!
The left has dominated the bench for decades, and used it to achieve political objectives at the expense of Constitutional integrity. Dobbs is about more than women’s “rights” to an abortion — it’s about the left being forced to sell and debate their agenda in the court of public opinion and to win support politically for their agenda if they are to achieve it. In purple states, I want to see Planned Parenthood and the like defend third trimester abortions as laws are debated. Had the left not been religiously devoted to this dogma, the will on the bench to overturn might have faded away. Instead, with public opinion squarely against these violent acts against the viable unborn, the bench had the fortitude to throw the entire Roe ruling out. And Thomas was willing to go even further by pointing out similarly flawed rulings with little grounding in the Constitution, despite their popular appeal. The issue of whether the Constitution is “a living document” which bends to the winds of the current times (the left’s view and basis for so desperately wanting to stack the bench) vs. a bedrock declaration that has to be amended through law (the originalist right’s view on the Constitution) is the far bigger battle that is brewing and could potentially tear this country apart.