Two days after the January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade decision was handed down, the editorial page of The New York Times—which had previously taken a pro-abortion stance—announced that the 7-2 decision “could bring to an end the emotional and divisive public argument” and “will end the argument if those who are now inveighing against the decision as a threat to civilization’s survival will pause long enough to recognize the limits of what the Court has done.”
That gross misstatement established the template that persists in many quarters: the assumption that Justice Harry Blackmun’s decision did not effectively repeal the abortion laws of all 50 states, with some states maintaining highly restrictive regulations and others allowing abortion on demand well into the second trimester. The abortion regime established fifty years ago was markedly at odds with public opinion.
The United States is now in the post-Roe era, thanks to the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision has created a more level playing field for pro-life advocates than ever before.
It is worth noting that from the outset, even those who espoused the pro-choice position were aware of the shortcomings in Blackmun’s opinion. For example, in 2005, Benjamin Wittes wrote, “In the years since the decision, a substantial body of academic literature has sought to reinforce the legal foundation for the right to abortion.” Nevertheless, despite the extensive scholarship on the topic, the constitutionality of abortion remains uncertain. Roe is a flawed opinion that has disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.
A second irony is that, as recent scholarly works have demonstrated, in its earliest years the pro-life movement was filled with liberal Democrats. A commitment to the protection of the vulnerable and the powerless was the reason I was previously engaged in Democratic Party politics to a significant extent. It is regrettable that when we were required to stand at attention and salute the flag of abortion on demand, for any reason or none—the ultimate litmus test—virtually all liberal Democrats tragically chose party over principle.
However, the diversity of the movement is now more extensive than ever, encompassing a wide range of organizations, including non-sectarian groups such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Feminists for Life, as well as secular pro-life groups. This exemplifies the ingenuity of the pro-life movement. One may oppose the killing of unborn babies, including those capable of experiencing horrific pain as they are torn limb from limb, for a variety of reasons. The categorization of the pro-life movement as “right-wing” or exclusively Christian is an enduring and misguided practice. It is a futile endeavor that will continue to be a source of confusion and misinformation.
The advent of science, technology, and even television commercials has made the task of persuasion far more accessible. During my wife’s pregnancy with our first child, I was required to feign comprehension of the images displayed on the ultrasound. In the present era, as is the case with hundreds of millions of other grandparents, when we visited the obstetrician, we were able to observe our grandchildren in four-color “real time.” This allowed us to see them engaged in various activities. The facial features were discernible, not indistinct, and there was no need for assistance in distinguishing between heads and tails.
The debate over partial-birth abortions in the 1990s significantly altered the trajectory of the abortion debate, as Gallup once conceded. Those who are pro-life believe that the debate over banning the dismembering of living unborn babies and the abortions of pain-capable children may eventually have a significant impact.
The NRLC believes that this will help reveal a truth that has been buried for decades. A majority of Americans oppose the reasons for the majority of abortions, which are performed for reasons that have been the subject of controversy for decades.
Despite the hostile stance of the mainstream media, the aforementioned support has been garnered. This is evidenced by the fact that the media did not even have to feign responsibility to cover the trial of an abortionist convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for aborting late-term babies alive and then murdering them by slicing their spinal cords.
It is important to consider the potential impact of a more nuanced understanding of the circumstances surrounding the actions of West Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. If the public were to recognize that he was not an isolated case, what implications might this have for the broader discourse surrounding abortion? That Gosnell is the epitome of the abortion industry, which vehemently opposes any and all attempts to have their facilities inspected without prior notice? (One might inquire as to the rationale behind this assertion.)
The late Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer Paul Greenberg once wrote, “The right to life must come first, as it is the foundation upon which all other rights can be built and flourish.” In accordance with the order of certain unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, It is noteworthy that the aforementioned phrase is mentioned first. And for good, logical reasons.
The movement toward life and away from death is an inevitable phenomenon. It would be prudent to recall this the next time someone attempts to portray pro-life advocates as the outliers.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
