Pro-abortionists laud Roe’s imaginary role in promoting female equality

By Dave Andrusko

In response to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the pro-abortion movement, of course, is attacking Kavanaugh for being exactly the kind of nominee the President promised he would submit to the Senate: someone whose judicial heroes are in the mold of Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Had he not, the same pro-abortionists and their legion of media allies would have bashed the President for insincerity.

Upon Kavanaugh’s official nomination, abortion advocates cranked up the hysteria machine, already in motion, warning that the end of Roe v. Wade would be imminent if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.

The tack is two-fold. Talk about “The Terror of a future without Roe,” to quote a post written by veteran pro-abortion scribe Julie Burkhart, and celebrate Roe as essential to “women’s educational and occupational opportunities over the past 45 years.” The latter is exemplified by “How Roe v. Wade changed the lives of American women,” by Professor Constance Shehan.

Burkhart is so over-the-top it would not be worth mentioning except as it illustrates how apocalyptic pro-abortion language is a week out from Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Prof. Shehan is more interesting, even if she ends with equally end-of-the-world conclusions.

Without Roe, she asks (rhetorically, of course)

Would women be forced into compulsory pregnancies and denied the opportunity to make life plans that prioritized educational and employment pursuits? Would motherhood and marriage be the primary or exclusive roles of women in typical childbearing ages?

The answer, for her, is self-evidently yes. But does that really follow? Would the world be unchanged for women from 1973 if they had not been able to abort a child (or children) for any reason or no reason, as late in pregnancy as an abortionist is willing to abort?

Without belaboring the point, Prof. Shehan makes the elementary mistake of treating correlation with causation. Did Roe cause massive numbers of women to go to college?

Let’s talk for a moment about what Prof. Shehan (or Burkhart, for that matter) doesn’t discuss. But why would they, since to abortion advocates, there are no downsides to having an abortion.

There is no post-abortion trauma, which (ignoring the academic studies showing there is) they insist is a figment of pro-lifers’ imagination. There is no increase in infertility due to the abortionist scraping around a woman’s reproductive system.

There is no expectation on the part of too many men that a single woman will abort, and if she chooses not to, the responsibility for raising that child becomes solely hers. No impact on the formation of families.

With the advent of chemical abortions which can be smuggled into drinks, we are supposed to ignore that more and more women will have their babies aborted without their consent.

Prof. Shehan’s final sentence is “Americans shouldn’t forget the role that Roe v. Wade played in advancing the lives of women,” even though writing in the penultimate sentence, she acknowledges

With the availability of a greater range of contraception and abortion drugs other than medical procedures available today, along with a strong demand for women’s labor in the U.S. economy, it seems unlikely that women’s status will ever go back to where it was before 1973.

Exactly. Why?

Because abortion wasn’t/ isn’t the cause of greater equality. Indeed, abortion is the ultimate discriminator when a child is aborted because the baby is a female.

We will see both sides of this pro-abortion argument in abundance over the next few months leading up to the confirmation hearings. Neither holds water.