Roe v. Wade Turns Forty

Norma McCorvey, plaintiff, "Jane Roe," in Rove v. Wade

Today is the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that has done little to settle the question of abortion in American society. OTR abhors the practice along with the decision guaranteeing its universal right, and he would have opposed a decision ensuring its universal denial as well. From a legal perspective, he believes a decision on this matter is best reserved for the states. The best decision, however, does not reside in the courts at all for this is a matter reserved for the heart.

The American experiment has a rather questionable record when it chooses the legal extremes of universal permission or denial in moral matters. Two glaring examples of failure in this arena include the prohibition of alcohol (1919-1933) and the so-called War on Drugs (1914-present, but enhanced since 1970). Although Roe v. Wade brought, among other outcomes, access and safety to the practice of abortion, it gave rise to program abuse, deep social division, and the ethnic cleansing of black America that, sadly, rivals the best intentions of the eugenics movement of a century ago. Indeed, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

This is an emotional issue - "a matter reserved for the heart" - and its subjective nature arouses broad opinion. William Katz has a post at Urgent Agenda that shares/shadows the observations above.  Our friends at Real Clear Politics have provided links to Jeffrey Toobin's comments in The New Yorker and those of Gail Collins from The New York Times. The editors at National Review also spoke on the issue earlier today.