If you have to ask
by Karina
Web Editor
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Action Fund
In George Will's column yesterday, "The Divisive Debate Doesn't Matter," he states that prior to Roe v. Wade, our nation was operating on "moral federalism," meaning that states governments, as opposed to the federal government, determined what was moral and therefore what was legal. He explains:
Then, America was operating under a regime of moral federalism. In the absence of ukases from the federal judiciary that generate continent wide eruptions of tension and anger, many states were reexamining their abortion regulations, and many were relaxing them.
After Will shrugs off any notion that electing anti-choice Republican president would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he goes ahead and questions what would happen if Roe somehow was overturned. The crux of his argument rests (rather unstably) on his oversimplification of the situation.
Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation.
"So what?"—As if handing women's reproductive rights over to state governments is no big thing?
Many states have already passed various laws, such as waiting periods and consent laws, which lead to the erosion of women's constitutional rights as well as a woman's ability to receive timely and effective health care. In fact, four states (pdf) have preemptively passed laws (known as trigger bans) that would prohibit abortion, effective immediately, after a reversal of Roe.
The fact is that Roe v. Wade isn't a case about states rights. It's a case about fundamental human rights.
So what? If you have to ask, you'll never know.
georgewill editorial roevwade abortion humanrights constitution constitutionalrights womensrights
