judicial tyranny

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Wed May 16 11:54:58 PDT 2001



> nathan at newman.org 05/16/01 02:24PM >>>There was a right to abortion BEFORE Roe v. Wade in an increasing number of
states established by state legislatures. People in states without abortion might have to travel to a different state to get an abortion but it was available by 1973. That travel need raised the cost, but then the Supreme Court after Roe declared that poor women had no right to equal treatment under insurance programs or Medicaid to exercise their supposed right to abortion, so heavy costs were imposed on the right to abortion in any case.

The point is that Roe was no lightswitch of abortion liberty. Many states have far stronger protections than Roe through funding abortions and other access rules and others have sought to chip away at those rights through raising the costs in all sorts of ways, while Operation Rescue and other groups have driven abortion clincs out of many communities. In Texas, abortion is available in only 19 out of 254 counties, so travel is still an issue for many women. Roe made a quantitative change at best in the cost of abortions but did not really change the fundamental issue, since the abortion rights had already been won legislatively in enough states to make choice a reality.

And I am not engaging in speculation when I note that many pro-choice women, who in fact think abortion rights are important, vote Republican because they know the courts protect their rights. It is not speculation to note that without Roe, those women might be forced to form real alliances with poor women to support abortion rights in a way that serves not just elite women.

(((((((((((

CB:

In analogy to your first argument on Roe, the fact that abortion rights had been won in many states prior to Roe v Wade might have been a cause for the failure to pass ERA , but I am not arguing that.

It is speculation, by the way, to say "that without Roe, those women might be forced to form real alliances with poor women, etc ". They might have and they might not have.

On balance, though I agree with your (new?) emphasis on not relying on courts, when something does go to the Supreme Court or other court, I don't favor a general theory of "vote the wrong way so that the progressive movement will unify or energize against the bad court result ".



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list