Oh Roe is Me


Norma McCorvey, the original "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade fame, has filed a motion to have the case overturned. No doubt the Justice Foundation, the conservative legal group that wrote the motion, think this is a brilliant move, having the original pro-life poster girl seek to reverse the landmark case. I think it’s a astoundingly stupid stunt, that neatly surrenders the pro-life movement's moral high ground.

Norma McCorvey, the original “Jane Roe” in the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion throughout the US, switched over to the pro-life side a while back. She’s now vey_roe_v_wade_4">filed a motion to have the case overturned. No doubt the Justice Foundation, the conservative legal group that wrote the motion, think this is a brilliant move, having the original pro-life poster girl seek to reverse the landmark case. I think it’s an astoundingly stupid stunt.

There are many good arguments for the pro-life cause, all of which have at their heart the question of the unborn baby’s status and rights. It is tough to argue that there is not some point during a pregnancy at which the rights of the baby-to-be at least equal the rights of the mother. But this new tactic doesn’t rely on these arguments at all.

The stated reason for the motion is that new evidence in the past thirty years shows that abortion is bad for women. The 5,400 pages of evidence submitted by McCorvey’s attorneys includes a thousand affidavits from women testifying that they regret their abortions. The basis for the motion, as far as I can tell so far, is that abortion is bad for women because many women regret having had abortions later on. That’s a lousy reason to overturn the case.

Whatever one thinks of abortion, the precedent set would be absurd. Is it okay to make any action which a person might later regret be illegal? Plenty of people have serious regrets about things they’ve done after drinking too much, but as this nation learned the hard way, banning alcohol was not the answer.

The Justice Foundation has probably also submitted evidence to demonstrate that abortion is bad for women’s health, as the pro-life movement has gathered many stories of women injured or killed by botched abortions. Again, this simply isn’t justification for overturning the case. If certain organizations or doctors are performing unsafe medical procedures, the solution is to censure or shut down the hospitals or clinics involved, or yank the medical licenses of the incomptent doctors.

But the real problem with this tactic is that the arguments the Justice Foundation is presenting in this case make the whole issue all about the potential mothers, not the potential babies. The pro-choice groups argue that they are looking after the welfare of women by ensuring that abortions remain available. The Justice Foundation is attempting to counter by arguing that no, the pro-life side is the one that’s really more concerned about women, because abortions hurt women.

That’s not an argument they’re going to win. Pro-choice women aren’t going to buy a patronizing platform that basically states that they’re too stupid to know what’s really good for them.

Worse yet, by adopting this tactic the pro-life side surrenders its strongest moral position. If both sides have now agreed that it's all about the women, who's going to defend the unborn babies?

Posted: Mon - June 23, 2003 at 10:10 PM      

©