Why American Jews Need Roe Reversed

As a recent guest essay in the New York Times demonstrates, the “Jewish argument” for preserving Roe v. Wade is unpersuasive. Calls to uphold Roe, growing in number and in fervor as the Supreme Court is set to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Wednesday morning, tend to cite the principle that the Jewish tradition allows and possibly requires abortion in exceptional cases such as when a woman’s pregnancy threatens her health. The argument then sweeps broadly to contend that Jews therefore should support the extremely permissive abortion regime that the Supreme Court created in Roe and has maintained by judicial fiat ever since. Such an argument mistakes the exception for the rule and wrongly aligns Jewish Americans with the regime that allows nearly unregulated abortions.

We maintain that this regime, which we call the “Judicial Status Quo” (reflecting the active choice that the Court makes to maintain its grip on abortion policy rather than returning it to states), actually poses a substantial threat to the interests of religious minorities and that Jewish Americans should think twice before defending it.

HS

About the Author

Howard Slugh

Howard Slugh is the general counsel for the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.

About the Author

Tal Fortgang

Tal Fortgang is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Featured Tags

As a recent guest essay in the New York Times demonstrates, the “Jewish argument” for preserving Roe v. Wade is unpersuasive. Calls to uphold Roe, growing in number and in fervor as the Supreme Court is set to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Wednesday morning, tend to cite the principle that the Jewish tradition allows and possibly requires abortion in exceptional cases such as when a woman’s pregnancy threatens her health. The argument then sweeps broadly to contend that Jews therefore should support the extremely permissive abortion regime that the Supreme Court created in Roe and has maintained by judicial fiat ever since. Such an argument mistakes the exception for the rule and wrongly aligns Jewish Americans with the regime that allows nearly unregulated abortions.

We maintain that this regime, which we call the “Judicial Status Quo” (reflecting the active choice that the Court makes to maintain its grip on abortion policy rather than returning it to states), actually poses a substantial threat to the interests of religious minorities and that Jewish Americans should think twice before defending it.