Democrats claim that with the addition of a third Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice, Roe v. Wade is in extreme danger of finally being overturned and, therefore, must be protected at all costs. The fact remains that Roe v. Wade is a bad legal decision and simply should not have passed scrutiny. However, it has been 47 years since the decision to legalize abortion. That longevity causes some to consider if the settled precedent of legalized abortion will remain untouched.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s newest nominee for the Supreme Court, has said as much.
In 2013, Barrett stated, “I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn Roe [v. Wade], or Roe [v. Wade] as curbed by [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey. The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand.”
In the eyes of pro-life Republicans, the apparent consensus that abortion either will stand or should stand as it has been decided is disheartening. Recently, Sen. Josh Hawley demanded that the newest nominee to the court admit that Roe is faulty legal precedent. In July, Hawley claimed he will only vote to confirm a judge who has been vocal about their dislike of the decadesold ruling. But this stringent guideline would exclude Barrett, not to mention many others who have been a favorite of the president.
Most of all, the ongoing discussion is a reminder to the pro-life crowd that we can’t count on the Supreme Court to be the linchpin in the entire movement.
Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose confirmation was supposed to spell certain doom for abortion proponents, sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s left-leaning justices in December 2018 in declining to review two cases that dealt with abortion providers.
Since it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned by the high court, pro-life individuals must focus their energies where the real change occurs. Placing all or most of the emphasis on whether or not a handful of jurists will vote in favor of the unborn ignores the reality in states and communities. Furthermore, in the event that Roe is ever reconsidered and then found faulty by the majority, the issue would only return to the states where most would legally allow it. In either case, abortion will continue to exist in the United States.
There will always be women who face unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. Since this is a constant despite the nature of the law, these women and their children must be met with compassion, love, and resources to help during an uncertain time. Aiding them with tangible help during crises should be the goal, first and foremost. Supporting politicians who are friendly to the pro-life movement is a worthy cause but should be in addition to the main objective.
The pro-life community simply can’t rely on a Supreme Court decision that may never come. There can be no certainty that Supreme Court justices nominated by a Republican president will be the ones to carry the pro-life mantle and eventually take down Roe v. Wade. We’ve seen this hold true with President George W. Bush and President Trump and their respective nominees. No matter what laws are changed or passed, a culture of life must always begin from the ground up.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
