The positive ripple effects of “rolling back” Roe v. Wade

By Dave Andrusko

Since this is the last post of the day, let me get right to it.

The Abortion Industrial Complex has known for years and years that no matter how many misrepresented polls they trot out, support for abortion is discrete, finite, and subject to erosion. As we have documented countless dozens of times, a majority of the American people consistently opposes the reasons 90+% of all abortions are performed. That’s why abortion advocates wrap abortion is gauzy rhetoric about “reproductive rights/reproductive health.”

A friend forwarded me a post that appeared at the National Journal titled “’Roe’ Is the Scaffolding on Which a Slew of Liberties Are Built.”

The thesis is simple enough. (Let me explain by first switching metaphors.)

A countless number of subsequent decisions on issues far outside our single issue purview are bound to Roe, Lourdes Rivera argues. It’s like a loose thread. You “pull on” Roe (roll it back), and the whole ball of yarn comes undone.

Or, as Rivera, argues,

A cornerstone precedent like Roe reaches both backward and forward in time: From the past cases it elaborated on, to the later cases it influenced.

What to say?

Looking “backward” in time (for us) we see how “privacy” and “autonomy” were like empty vessels into which the courts filled rationales that legalized failing to treat babies born with disabilities but also to starving and dehydrating patients to death.

The “forward in time” for us is how these same vague terms morphed into support (“scaffolding” to use Rivera’s metaphor) for the “right” to assisted suicide. We’ve seen how the underpinning for legalizing abortion can be imported into the controversy over “assisting” someone to die.

Put another way, Roe is the anti-life virus that jumped from the preborn to the child born with imperfections to the medically vulnerable of any age.

I would like to agree 100% with Lourdes Rivera in one respect. He believes that “rolling back” Roe would have a “ripple effect.”

I would hope so—that it would reestablish protections for other vulnerable populations vanquished by the logic of Roe v. Wade.