linnposts.com

My answer to that question is Yes, but finding common ground will require the use of facts and reason instead of raw emotions.

The latter has been dominating the debate on abortion for a long time, which is why it may be the most volatile and politically charged issue of our time, and is the source of much bitterness and division in our nation.

The first thing I did when I decided to address this issue was to read the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. I also read the dissent of Justice Byron White who was joined by Justice William Rehnquist to make the Court’s ruling a 7-2 decision.

I was surprised by what I found because what the Court actually said and what many people think it said are quite different. But first some historical context.

Before 1973 different states had different laws on abortion, and a few had none. All those with laws made allowance for the safety of the mother’s life and health, with a few making allowances for incest and rape.

In 1969 Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”) filed a lawsuit claiming that a Texas law criminalizing all abortions except when the woman’s life was in jeopardy violated her constitutional rights. While two other parties filed similar suits against Texas at the same time, the Court rejected hearing them and focused exclusively on Jane Roe’s.

The Court also agreed to hear the case of Doe v. Bolton that challenged abortion laws in the state of Georgia. While the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in that case and overturned Georgia’s abortion restrictions as well, the Roe v Wade ruling became the focus of the public’s attention on the subject and has been the point of debate ever since.

That decision is my focus, so let’s begin with what the Court did not say in its ruling.

It did not declare that a woman has an unrestricted right to choose an abortion, as some people believe, nor did it affirm the state’s freedom to pass laws that ignore a woman’s right to privacy.

Instead, it ruled that the Texas law was based on the view that life begins at conception, a belief the Court said could be true, but was not an established medical fact. This belief that life begins at conception, the Court ruled, led Texas to enact a law that was too broad and too general to meet constitutional demands, especially in regard to the 14th amendment.

That amendment forbids the state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Overturning the Texas law, the Court went on to say, did not mean that the state had no “compelling interests” in the well being of the fetus regardless of when life begins, only that such interests could not abridge a woman’s 14th amendment rights.

Thus, it declared: : “The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”

So to summarize the Court’s decision as succinctly as possible, Roe v Wade overturned the Texas law prohibiting abortion and also declared that the 14th amendment protected Jane Roe’s right to terminate her pregnancy. But it also said that this right was limited to the first trimester. Thereafter, the state’s “compelling interests” in the welfare of the woman and the fetus could be a basis for placing reasonable limits on choice.

If Texas (or any state) did impose such limits, it would have to show why those specific limits met the standard of “compelling interests” in protecting both the mother and the fetus.

In his dissent from the majority’s decision, Justice White did not speak to the issue of abortion itself, but focused on the Court’s use, or his opinion, misuse, of the 14th amendment as a basis for ruling that choice was a woman’s constitutional right.

I personally believe it is possible that Justice White was correct in his reading of the Constitution, but I also believe Roe v. Wade was still the right decision for the Court to make even if he was.

Explaining why I say that will be the focus of my next blog.