Shifting Positions
On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted a “right to privacy” component within the U.S. Constitution as extending to pregnant females. That “right to privacy” meant government could not intervene if a woman wanted to choose aborting her baby; that’s where we got the “it’s between the woman and her doctor” line.
On June 24, 2022…49 and a half years later…the Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, which opened the door for individual states to limit how far aborting a pregnancy could go.
From the time Roe was decided and for a half-century after, both sides—pro-life and pro-abortion—raised millions of dollars of cash on the issue. The pro-abortion side, to make sure nothing changed…and the pro-life side, saying this was not a federal issue and belonged at the state level—a basic “state’s rights” argument.
Hearing those on the political left say, in the wake of the Dobbs case overturning Roe, that Congress needs to pass a law overriding state provisions as the quickest way to restore things to a pre-Dobbs status. A constitutional amendment would be more appropriate, but the law is quicker.
Some on the political right stuck to their long-held view that this is a state’s rights issue, consistent with the Dobbs ruling. But a funny thing happened once Roe was overturned…many on the political right started calling for Congress to pass a law banning abortion.
How can you lobby, fund-raise, and campaign on it being a state’s rights issue, and be against pro-abortion folks who want a national law permitting abortion…but then call for a national law prohibiting abortion? It’s a massively inconsistent argument, and suggests that those on the right never thought Roe would be overturned and weren’t prepared for what came next.
This comes to mind because presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump said a few days ago that he does not favor a national anti-abortion law, that the matter should be left up to individual states. He noted that from a practical, political standpoint, it’s the most prudent approach, and he’s right. Trump wound up being attacked from both the left and right for his stance—which at first blush would suggest he may be on to something, if the extremes of both parties are against the idea.
It’s one thing to alter your position on an issue after extended study or a change in circumstances. But for all these folks who cried out for state’s rights for nearly three generations to all of a sudden flip and demand a national law on the topic…that’s disingenuous at best. If they believed in their hearts a national law was best, they should have said so all along…and should not be criticizing Trump for being soft on the “life” issue just because he states a political reality.
Tough issue, to be sure, with plenty of emotion on all sides. It’s the fake emotion shown by opportunists that needs to be called out for what it is.
