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.

Steele on Abortion

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has some words about abortion which will be ringing soon between the ears of the conservative wing in the party. Essentially, he said that abortion was an individual choice and an issue to be reserved for the states. You can read an early link to the story here. [National Review Online was my tip - look for more there today.] Steele is a Catholic and on the record as "pro-life." He has made his personal choice. On the other hand, I can hear the libertarian principles of the Founding Fathers appealing to his conscience as he attempts to lead his party through a political mine field. The issue is so divisive that some Republicans will call for his head. This is the Taliban approach and one that will do nothing more than lose elections, rather than heads, in our republic. Attempts at reversing Roe vs. Wade in the hope that it will end abortion will, I fear, do the same. On the other hand, a reversal may put the "choice" in choice back into the hands of the states where it belongs. Frankly, this is something the Republican party needs to hear and accept if it intends to woo the center, grow the party and win elections. No question it will be a hard lesson, but this, I believe, is the new and essential thinking Steele brings to the party.

My personal journey with this issue has been equally difficult. I find abortion deserving consideration only in the most limited of circumstances. Many Americans agree with me, perhaps a majority, but we live in a nation of laws anchored in liberty and the freedom of personal choice. We should thank God every day that our earthly Fathers spared us from democracy, the mob and the tyranny of the majority. In the same manner, the Fathers spared us from the tyranny of state religion. We, the people, are a government of choice. That said, who am I to make a moral choice for another under this umbrella of liberty? I am obligated to guide, to counsel, to offer example, but who am I to make the choice? The very act of choice defines the moral self and the consequences of that choice. Christians have it no other way. And my nation's highest court has raised the issue to federal prominence in an era of judicial activism. There, the role of the court as the interpreter of the Constitution moves evermore beyond the intent of its authors. How am I to act? I choose high moral ground for the individual and legal compromise for the community. It is more at resolution through management; there is no miracle cure here.

So Steele pursues his course through rough seas, knowing full well that one safe harbor will not satisfy his crew. The man has accepted a big challenge. He responds to this issue both personally and professionally through an interview, though perhaps not as clearly as he could, being the "at ease" person he is. This interview and its issue will be fodder for the critics and a hard lesson in reality for the wingers. Shall we keep our heads, while all about us are losing theirs?" Shall we choose wisely? We shall see.