Roe and the Possibility of Compromise

This essay by Jon Shields of Claremont McKenna bears reading. Its thesis is that a difficult compromise on abortion can be reached by appealing to how most Americans view the issue: namely, Americans are more comfortable with abortions early in pregnancy and likelier to endorse fetal rights as pregnancy proceeds. Significantly, an atmosphere that is at least riper for compromise coincides with the possible demise of Roe v. Wade. Roe and its progeny are the textbook cases of the Court trying to resolve a social controversy and intensifying it instead. Had the matter been left to legislatures, they would have … Continue reading Roe and the Possibility of Compromise

Roe: Considering the Counterfactual

At The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse notices an under-appreciated aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision to take up a Mississippi case that it could use to overturn or restrict Roe. v. Wade. She writes that legislators in pro-life states, who have been multiplying restrictions on abortion to test Roe, will now be accountable for them: Ever since the 2010 election ushered new Republican majorities into state legislatures, politicians there have been able to impose increasingly severe abortion restrictions without consequence, knowing that the lower courts would enjoin the laws before they took effect and save the people‚Äôs representatives from … Continue reading Roe: Considering the Counterfactual