GREENWOOD — Mississippi, a strongly pro-life state, can take great satisfaction in providing a reshaped U.S. Supreme Court with the test case that could overturn, or at least whittle down, Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
It’s generally believed that the conservative majority on the court is now so solid — six to three — that Roe v. Wade’s days are numbered.
Hopefully so. The termination of the lives of tens of millions of unborn children since Roe v. Wade is a moral cancer on this nation. It is a genocide rooted in a judicial fabrication that created a “right to privacy,” a right that does not exist in the Constitution.
But even if Mississippi’s case is successful, the practical impact will be modest in the short term and possibly also in the long.
Mona Charen, a pro-life conservative columnist, explains the reasons as to why.
First, the law in question — banning abortions other than in exceptional circumstances after 15 weeks — would criminalize very few abortions. Mississippi’s lone abortion provider, located in Jackson, performs abortions only up to 16 weeks, so the law would only trim one week from what’s currently available.
In addition, there just aren’t that many abortions performed after 15 weeks. Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks, and another 6% are performed between 13 and 15 weeks, Charen says. Thus, a 15-week ban would affect only around 5% of abortions.
Second, a growing number of abortions these days are not surgical but rather are effected through medications that either keep the fertilized embryo from implanting or induce the pregnant woman to miscarry. Medication abortions, which in 2017, according to Charen, represented 40% of all abortions, are much harder to regulate. It’s likely that these abortifacient pills, should they be banned, could still be obtained on the black market, probably through internet purchases.
Third, overturning Roe v. Wade would turn the issue back to the states, which was the case before the 1973 decision. Pro-life states, such as Mississippi, would probably go even further than the 15-week ban, but pro-choice states, which generally have the highest rates of abortion, would continue to make access to the procedure unfettered.
Thus, even in the best-case scenario, the nation would return to a patchwork system, where abortion numbers and access would be largely determined by state lines. Still, the result would almost certainly be fewer abortions, accelerating the direction in which the country has been headed for several decades.
In 1981, as Charen notes, the abortion rate peaked at 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. By 2017, it had fallen to 13.5, which is even lower than it was when Roe v. Wade was decided.
Greater access to contraception has certainly contributed to that decline. So, too, has been the moral persuasiveness of the pro-life movement.
Americans are conflicted on abortion. The majority feel uncomfortable condoning it, but they are also uncomfortable banning it. Roe v. Wade has allowed them to avoid having to reconcile these conflicting opinions.
If the Supreme Court rescinds or severely curtails federalized abortion rights a year from now, voters in every state will have to choose what takes precedence: a woman’s right to an abortion or an unborn child’s right to live.
Some states will opt for the former, some for the latter. But there will be no hiding under the high court’s robes from taking responsibility for that choice.
Tim Kalich is editor and publisher of The Greenwood Commonwealth.
