The recent momentum enjoyed by the pro-life movement has alarmed many supporters of legal abortion, many of whom are considering various short-term strategies to limit pro-life progress. Others have taken a longer-term view and actually expressed regret for the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. They argue that the expansion of abortion rights through the democratic process was inevitable, but the Supreme Court short-circuited this progress and inadvertently created a strong, vibrant pro-life movement.
This latter view is shared by many historians, political scientists, and pro-choice activists; the actual history of abortion politics in the 1960s and ’70s tells a much different story.
Five states substantially expanded access to abortion before the Roe v. Wade decision: California, New York, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska. However, even in these states, the legality of abortion was still very controversial. In 1972, the New York state legislature voted to repeal the legislation making abortion legal — only to have it vetoed by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller.
Frustrated by their lack of progress in state legislatures, supporters of legal abortion turned to the initiative process. In 1972, well-funded initiatives that would have expanded abortion access appeared on the ballot in both Michigan and North Dakota — where they were resoundingly defeated by majorities of 63 percent and 78 percent. By the end of 1972, it seemed that supporters of legal abortion were losing momentum. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court handed them a substantial victory and changed the nation’s political landscape for decades.
Supporters of legal abortion should be grateful for Roe, as it has paid them handsome dividends that last to this day. It legalized abortion on demand and made abortion policy resistant to change. It changed sexual and cultural mores in ways that made subsequent restrictions on abortion more difficult to enact. It gave abortion rights mainstream political legitimacy. It created a national network of abortion providers with a financial interest in easy access to abortion. These have been difficult hurdles for the pro-life movement to overcome.
Since 1973, the pro-life movement has worked tirelessly on a number of different fronts and has had its success stories. It has convinced millions of Americans that abortion is wrong, supported pregnancy resources centers that have helped countless women facing crisis pregnancies, passed many incremental laws to protect the unborn, and enjoyed legislative success defunding abortion at both the state and federal levels. Unfortunately for the pro-life movement, Supreme Court decisions are resistant to change, and even if Roe were overturned, the broader battle would have only just begun.
Supporters of legal abortion may be frustrated by the pro-life movement’s momentum. However, an honest reading of the history of abortion politics shows that the Supreme Court’s ham-handed decision granted today’s pro-choicers a victory their predecessors never thought possible — a legal regime protecting abortion on demand throughout nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.
Why? In part because of improved medical imaging like this video, which show the baby's heart beating at just 8 weeks:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe pro-abortion lobby should be concerned about the growing power of the pro-life movement in a mostly Christian nation that is uncomfortable with the idea of ending a human life for any reason, much less for the convenience of another. When state and local governments made the call on abortion, citizens had a say, whether pro or con, in this very controversial issue and could vote for those government officials who supported their point of view. And if the opposing side of that issue won the day, people who felt very strongly about abortion had the option of moving to a place where the majority view was in line with their own.
Once the USSC took control of the abortion issue away from the people at the state and local levels and handed it over to the federal government and politicians on the national level, it didn’t take long for the aborting of unborn babies to become a political tool, and a particularly unappealing one that that. The Constitutional right of a woman to determine what happens within her own body eventually collided head-on with the offensive reality of terminating the life of an unborn baby because that life is inconvenient and unwanted. And as contraceptive methods became more accessible and reliable, our opposition to aborting an unwanted baby as an alternative to contraception increased.
The opposition to abortion wasn’t so apparent or fierce when it was restricted to the state and local levels, but when pro-lifers from all fifty states banned together their voices became louder and their resistance more intense. People who oppose abortion could tolerate it in someone else’s state or city, but tolerance was harder to come by when abortion was happening in their own backyards and national organizations like Planned Parenthood publicly flaunted their newfound political strength. The pro-choice movement should wise up and focus their efforts on encouraging women to make the choice not to have a baby before conception rather than on eliminating the consequences of irresponsible behavior after conception.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile it's certainly true that the abortion rights movement experienced fits and starts and even setbacks pre-Roe, I'd still say with some confidence that even without Roe there would have been a net increase in access to abortion nationwide, albeit in a very patchwork form. I also suspect the situation would be more fluid than it is today.
The greatest effect of Roe, in my opinion, has been in creating not just a vibrant pro-life movement, but in elevating social conservatism as a force to the national level. While there had been a number of decisions by the Supreme Court in the 60's and 70's that had a certain catalytic effect, Roe was the straw that broke the camel's back and created the modern, nationwide, social conservative movement, and the impact of this movement over the last 30+ years cannot be overstated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Will is exactly right. The momentum, why that word seems bizarre to me is another story, is coming from the *science*, not "politics" or "courts" or "democratic processes".
President Obama likes to talk about bringing "science" in to help solve the issues of the day - an implicit rejection of the role of theology and ethics by our "Christian" president. Ironically, science is what is behind this so-called momentum of the pro-life movement.
I have a 3D Ultrasound of my daughter at 20 weeks. If that isn't "science", I don't know what is. From that 3D picture, just by looking at her face, we could tell that she was going to look like her brother and sister. Same face, same little smile, same nose. Only 20 weeks old and still in the womb, she looked exactly like baby pictures we have of my oldest daughter sleeping as an infant.
For many of the reasons cited, we will never rid the world of abortion. But the science is not on the abortionists' side, which is why they fight so hard to prevent a young woman from being shown a picture of her baby.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust wait until they come up with a pre-natal screening for homosexuality. That's when it will get really fun.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew York has an initiative process? Where? I've been in this state for over 40 years and I have NEVER seen such a process.
Citation of the relevant NY law. Otherwise, to quote a Congressman who shall remain nameless: "You Lie!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA pointed lesson for gay marriage advocates who think the SCOTUS is somehow going to put an end to the debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTristan, where does the author state that New York has the initiative process? The initiatives he was referring to took place in Michigan and North Dakota, not New York.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse