Bookmark and Share


 
 

NRL News
Page 3
June 2009
Volume 36
Issue 6

Pro-Life Action
BY Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

OVERTURNING ROE v. WADE IS DIFFICULT

With Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court did more than merely legalize abortion: it “constitutionalized” it, making the new “right” immune to simple legislative correction. This de facto amendment to the Constitution from the judicial bench created the severe difficulties pro-lifers have faced since 1973. Overturning Roe v. Wade is possible in only two ways—both very difficult: (1) Congress and the states initiate and complete the process of amending the Constitution or (2) the Supreme Court reverses its Roe v. Wade decision.

As to the first possibility, it is simply not feasible in the current climate. As to the second, reversing Roe v. Wade first requires a change in the composition of the Court: justices must be Constitution-oriented instead of acting as a super-legislature. In 1973, Roe was imposed with a 7 to 2 “activist,” pro-abortion majority. Since then, many observers note, the Court has become less sympathetic to extra-constitutional law-making from the bench. But the opposition faced by pro-life presidents about their judicial appointments made it clear that the pro-abortion Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate is determined to frustrate all attempts to appoint Constitution-oriented instead of outcome-oriented justices and judges. The election of President Obama, who is fully committed to abortion rights, threatens at least to delay a reversal of Roe, which remains a major goal of NRLC.

PRO-LIFE STRATEGIES

Given this state of affairs, the strategy for pro-lifers must have elements like these:

* See to it that we have pro-life presidents and a solid majority of pro-life senators so that we get a Constitution-oriented Supreme Court.

* Save lives by denying federal and state tax funds for abortions. This requires pro-life presidents, governors, and majorities in Congress and the state legislatures. It also demands smart behavior by the pro-life electorate. (For example, denying the non-ideal pro-life candidate the vote “for the sake of principle” too often leads to the election of the “ideal” pro-abortion candidate.)

*  Reduce the number of abortions by enacting legislation requiring parental notification/involvement, informed consent, waiting periods before an abortion, access to ultrasound imaging before an abortion, etc. Anything that makes a woman consider the humanity of her child before she takes the irrevocable step of having an abortion saves lives.  Moreover, the process of discussing pro-life legislation and generating public support for it, as well as the blocking of pro-abortion legislation, tend to move public opinion in the pro-life direction.

* Change the public’s attitude about abortion. Educating the public about the biological facts of human development before birth is the fundamental first step.  Informing the public about what abortions actually do, about the frequency of abortion, about the extremeness of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, about the destructive aftereffects of abortion on the women who have them—all this we must continue to do.

DO OUR STRATEGIES WORK?

A Gallup poll last May found that a majority of 51% identified themselves as pro-life, while 42% were “pro-choice.” (Other polling firms have reported similar results.) This is the first time this has happened since Gallup began asking the question in 1995.  At that time, the result was very different: 56% “pro-choice” and only 33% pro-life.  The pro-life and “pro-choice” labels have, however, only limited value in identifying public opinion.

In 1994 Gallup began to ask another set of questions that shed a little more light on public attitudes about abortion. In that year 33% favored abortion to be “legal under any circumstances,” 13% wanted it “legal under most circumstances,” 38% preferred abortion to be “legal only in a few circumstances,” while 13% wanted it to be “illegal in all circumstances.” The usual habit of pollsters is to add the first two numbers as the “pro-choice” position (46%), and the last two numbers as the “pro-life” position (51%). Thus even in 1994, the “pro-life” position held a slight advantage.  Note that the solidly pro-abortion position (33%) was nearly three times more popular than the solidly pro-life position (13%). In May 2009, the results for “legal in most circumstances” and “legal in only a few circumstances” were very similar: 15% and 37%, respectively. But the solidly pro-abortion position had dropped by a third to 22%, while the solidly pro-life position nearly doubled to 23%!

Since 1994 there have been significant events to account for this improvement. First, NRLC’s prolonged and intense campaign to ban partial-birth abortions on the federal and state level refocused the public’s attention away from vapid pro-abortion slogans like “choice” and “who decides” onto the horrific reality of what abortion actually does. In 1996, 57% favored, while 39% opposed banning partial-birth abortions. By 2003, the ratio was 70% to 25 % for banning partial-birth abortions. Moreover, NRLC’s various campaigns in the states to enact protective legislation such as informed consent laws, etc. helped further educate the public about abortion. Various polls continue to show that the public favors such laws.

Second, the routine use of ultrasound imaging during a pregnancy showed women that they were carrying a live “baby”—their baby—not just “tissue.” Viewing such an image can only mean that a pregnant woman is less likely to abort her child.  In state legislatures, NRLC is vigorously promoting laws requiring that an ultrasound be displayed so that a woman might easily view her unborn child before making a life or death decision.

Third, aside from academic researchers telling us so, women who have had abortions increasingly are speaking out about how damaging abortion has been to them—physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Aside from polling, one can gauge women’s attitudes about abortion by what they actually do: From 1980 to 2005, the number of women of child-bearing age rose by 16%, while the so-called abortion rate, the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age, dropped by 33%. It is worth noting that the abortion rate had rapidly risen during the 1970s, but rather suddenly reversed its steep rise in 1980-81—just at a time when the pro-life movement became nationally very vocal and made abortion an important issue in the election campaign that made Ronald Reagan our president.

Have we changed women’s attitude about abortion?  Have we saved lives? If the abortion rate had stayed at the level it had in 1980, there would have been 9 million more abortions by today.