The reaction to the leak of a Supreme Court Draft Opinion that would overturn Roe vs. Wade has ranged from elation to hysteria and has produced takes and opinions that have ranged from measured to unhinged meltdowns full of falsehood.
I have a great deal of interest in diminishing the cultural temperature, so that cooler heads can prevail. To that end, I am going to respond to — I hope humbly — to some of the rage, anger, and error that the reaction has produced.
“Other rights like interracial marriage are now in peril!”
Some folks have posited that the reasoning in the Dobbs opinion (that overturns Roe) would lead to the Court overturning cases on interracial marriage or even integration of schools.
To keep the temperature low, I will not speculate on the motives of the people who have injected those fears or possibilities into the national conversation. These hypotheticals, though, are not rooted in fact.
Justice Alito, who authored the leaked opinion, is careful to specify the reasoning by which and for which Roe would be overturned. On pages 9, 10, 45, and 51 of the Opinion, Alito specifies that Roe’s reasoning was rooted in a Court-manufactured “right to privacy.” Roe concocted that right from pieces of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Alito did NOT use this reasoning:
1. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments.
2. The 10th Amendment reserves power to the States when a matter is not mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments.
3. Therefore, Roe is invalid because it gives power to the federal government instead of the States.
That’s the reasoning that could be used to overturn school integration or interracial marriage.
Alito’s opinion primarily argues that Roe’s reasoning was specious from the start, so the issue is returned to the States.
“A conservative Supreme Court is FORCING its abortion policy on the rest the Country!”
Some people have an honest misunderstanding of what would happen if Roe is overturned. Some others might be pushing this line in an effort to motivate people with fear.
This notion isn’t true at all. Each State will now get to make its own abortion policy. The Supreme Court has returned the power to the people. This decision actually WEAKENS the Court and STRENGTHENS the people and their representatives.
About 35% of the US Population will be living in States is virtually no abortion restrictions. Another 30% or so will live in States adjacent to the abortion-friendly States. In relation population a relatively small number of Americans will live in States that use this new freedom to heavily restrict abortion.
“Abortion is popular with close to 80% of the Country!”
Several leftist politicians and media figures have been arguing that there is popular consensus in the US in favor of abortion. Importantly, that does not matter in the slightest. Courts are designed to rule dispassionately on laws. They are specifically not to consider public opinion.
This point is even more incorrect than it is irrelevant, though.
Wide swaths of the country — data suggests around 70% — do NOT want to see abortion banned outright. Once you scratch the surface of that data point, however, you find a country that mostly looks like this:"
—Large approval of abortion for any reason in the first trimester
—Large approval of BANNING abortion (with exceptions) in the third trimester
—A smaller mushy middle that can’t decide for what reasons and at what point in the second trimester to cut abortion off.
When emotions cool and people realize that abortion is still going to largely be available, we’re going to find that the average American position on abortion is actually quite complicated.
"This decision is anti-democracy. Presidents who won with a minority of the popular vote nominated these judges.”
This has been one of the silliest arguments I have heard.
First, the most anti-democracy outcome is one where unelected judges make policy. Roe vs. Wade is a Court usurping the people and, by fiat, creating policy — the job of the people’s representatives.
This ruling RETURNS power to the democratic system by allowing voters to influence the outcome of abortion policy.
It takes a dim mind to argue that getting to VOTE in reference to a policy is LESS democratic than Courts ruling on it.
Further, we specifically have a republic. Democracy is a terrible, chaotic system of governance, and we are not a democracy. If people object to our system of government, I invite them to start gathering a movement for Constitutional Amendments.
“If you really cared about babies, you would support all of my preferred welfare programs.”
I find this one both uninformed and insulting. It’s more important that it’s wrong.
I have seen people arguing that unless you are for full-on socialism, you don’t really care about children.
This argument starts to feel like this: “Unless you give me everything, pay for all my expenses, and never make me responsible for a single expense, I’m killing my kid.” It’s a perverse hostage situation sort of argument.
It is totally consistent to hold these positions simultaneously:
—Stop killing pre-born humans
—I am not responsible for the financial support of every child
At the same time, for pro-life people like me, I urge you to generosity for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and ministries that help those in need. While that private charity is good and virtuous, the argument that unwillingness to create giant programs at the federal level equates to not caring about children is immature, fallacious, and slanderous.
FINAL THOUGHTS
This topic brings out the worst in people. Patience is key. I hope you’ll join me by calmly, humbly speaking truth to the lies that are causing so much rage.
