“I am deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade,” reads a statement from Sen. Joe Manchin, the supposedly pro-life Democrat from West Virginia. What follows is an incoherent statement that gets everything backward from what a moderate on the abortion issue ought to say.
Proponents of legal abortion (including the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have and do freely acknowledge that Roe was a poor decision, even though they support its outcome and would have liked to see it reached by less ridiculous means. It is coherent to say, “I am pro-choice on abortion, but anti-Roe.” But the idea that one would embrace the converse of this — “I’m anti-abortion but pro-Roe” — is so stupid that it reeks of political maneuvering.
Is Manchin saying things like this because he is worried about a primary challenge in 2024? I can’t imagine any other reason he would stake out such a position.
“It has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years and was understood to be settled precedent,” Manchin said of Roe. He then indulged the Democratic conspiracy theory that suggests several justices lied about their intentions with Roe “when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent, and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”
Manchin said that, as a Catholic, he was “raised pro-life and will always consider myself pro-life. But I have come to accept that my definition of pro-life may not be someone else’s definition of pro-life. I believe that exceptions should be made in instances of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.”
Manchin finally said he would support legislation that “would codify the rights Roe v. Wade previously protected. … I am hopeful Democrats and Republicans will come together to put forward a piece of legislation that would do just that.”
First of all, the correct acknowledgment by Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett that Roe was a “settled legal precedent” at the time of their confirmations never constituted an endorsement of the decision, let alone a pledge to uphold it. Some precedents are just wrong and need to be unsettled — otherwise, we’d still be living under Plessy v. Ferguson, which would be ridiculous.
Second, I understand what Manchin means about exceptions “in instances of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy,” but that has nothing to do with Roe or Dobbs. The fact is, many of the controversial abortion laws that Roe either swept off or kept off the books over the last five decades have contained those very exceptions. So Manchin’s “disappointment” at this decision would be very misplaced if that forms the basis for it.
Finally, it isn’t even clear what Manchin is talking about with respect to passing a bipartisan law codifying Roe, or how anyone who claims to be pro-life could ever support such a thing. Democrats recently supported a bill that would strike all state abortion laws, claiming that it would have codified Roe, even though that was not true — those laws coexisted with Roe. But I’m not sure how many Republicans would want to pass a law that re-nationalizes abortion at this point, or how that can be squared with any definition of “pro-life,” including Manchin’s.
Perhaps Manchin is afraid that, among his party’s activists and primary voters, there is now a threat to his political career because his pro-life stance might actually entail something beyond lip service. That’s the only explanation I can think of for his incoherent reaction to this decision.
