I Would Really Like to See Roe v Wade Overturned!
But not for the reasons you may think. Most people equate the overturning of Roe v Wade with the pro-life movement. Ideally those who claim to be pro-life have the ultimate goal of seeing abortion numbers go down. The problem, as I see it, is that if Roe v Wade is overturned, it becomes a state issue. Some of us might be able to hold our heads up proudly as our own state makes abortion illegal. We could turn a blind eye as rich teenage girls are carted just across the state line to a state where abortion is legal - maybe even up to the 9th month. We could decry the morals of the poor girls who are made to carry a teen pregnancy to term. We could vote against funding programs that would help the poor, single moms, claiming it is a redistribution of wealth or that they got themselves into this mess, or they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or whatever. And all the while, abortion numbers would likely remain pretty close to what they are right now. But in our state they would drop, and that’s what we care about, right? Or do we care about truly reducing the number of abortions?
So why would I like to see Roe v Wade overturned? Because clearly, I don’t think it will really change the numbers that much.
Without Roe v Wade, people will be forced to vote on different issues. It would open the door for a third party, because the religious right would not fear that voting third party would put the pro-life movement in jeopardy. Christians in particular would be forced to look closely at other social issues, at economic issues, at foreign policy issues, rather than focusing on a single issue.
Roe v Wade being taken out of the picture would also force candidates to stop using the abortion issue to win votes, when they really have no intention of doing a thing about the issue once in office. Call me cynical, but I believe that is what many in the Republican party have been doing for decades. They know they cannot win votes unless they claim to be pro-life, so they do. Once in office, however, that issue is tossed aside until election time again, when it is dragged back out of the closet, dusted off, and put back on a pedestal as the KEY ISSUE. Just look at this quote from the Pro Life Alliance website:
After all, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, all five votes to sustain Roe were from judges nominated by Republican presidents: Blackmun (who authored Roe), Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter.
Call me cynical, but I really think the abortion issue is simply a tool to win votes. It is not an issue that presidential candidates truly have a passion for an intend to change. It just charges up the base of support, one way or the other. And among Christians, it is an issue that many use to judge the faith of fellow believers. As I said in a previous post, a vote for Obama is a vote against Jesus, in the eyes of many.
So I would like to see this issue just go away. I want to be able to intelligently discuss politics and NOT have the abortion issue come up. I want to think that people in my town might be able to put the words “Christian” and “Chewymom” in the same sentence again. (And not a sentence that goes something like, “Chewymom likes Obama, so she is definitely not a Christian.”) I would like for Christians to feel like they have the freedom to look at other issues when they cast their vote.
I’m not holding my breath, though, because “pro-life” or not, I don’t think we will see Roe v Wade overturned any time soon, if ever. So cynical Chewymom predicts that elections will continue to be about one issue from now until the day Jesus comes.
For a truly eloquent, heartfelt post along these lines, head over to my friend Nicole’s blog and check this out.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Amen. Well said again.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Cynical? Yeah, I’d say you’ve got a cynical streak these days, Chewy.
“We could decry the morals of the poor girls who are made to carry a teen pregnancy to term. We could vote against funding programs that would help the poor, single moms, claiming it is a redistribution of wealth or that they got themselves into this mess, or they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or whatever. . . . “
That IS cynical.
I’m sure you are right about the “not in my state” sort of ugly pride. But the people I know who are more ardently pro-life ARE the ones helping the poor, getting involved in the down-and-dirty reality of peoples’ lives, embracing young women who are pregnant in the church whether the pregnancy was longed for or an unhappy surprise. . . I’ve seen elders in the church standing by newly-single moms in practical ways, people giving sacrificially to both neighbors and non-profits near and far, volunteering time.
In other words, I’ve seen people REALLY put their money where there mouth is — I’m not as cynical as you are.
. . .
On the other hand, I’ve also seen a societal move away from helping people personally, donating to private charities, being involved when they think that a “program” already exists. The attitude of “It’s not my problem, that’s what the government is for. . .” is demoralizing. And THAT is what I don’t want to see develop.
. . .
Did you see Obama’s income tax returns? He itemized on his tax returns and so his charitable giving was noted. I would want to assume he gave more casually than he reported to his accountant. Before his books substantially increased his income, his charitable giving was a pittance. When his income was many times higher than our families, our GROSS giving was higher than his. (Say all you want about student loans and cost of living, I still find it shocking that he gave so very little.) And even now, with my husband under-employed, student loans coming due, and four young kids at home, our PERCENTAGE of charitable giving is still higher than his.
Honestly, I take offense when someone talks about the poor, the disenfranchised, the needy — and all they do is talk. I take even GREATER offense when the same person wants to take MY money and spend it on what THEY think is important — when they aren’t themselves willing to spend their own money on those very things.
. . .
So I guess we each have our cynicism. . . yours about the everyday people you see disregarding those in need. Me about the hypocrisy and misuse of power in government.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Those were my thoughts on the “big picture” of your post. . .
But about the reversal of Roe v. Wade / Doe v. Bolton. . . I’m not holding my breath. But it was a poor decision, judicial activism — and apart from the abortion issue it should be reversed. I appreciated McCain bringing up that point in the third debate. I wish I could say I was surprised that Obama spoke in favor of activist judges. On a constitutional level, I’m concerned that the continued direction of appointing judges who legislate from the bench will upset the balance of powers in a manner that will hurt the U.S. for generations to come.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:21 am
I love it! Preach it, girl! =)
October 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I can’t say I disagree about the republican party’s use of the abortion issue.
I also agree that overturning roe v wade won’t really change much in terms of helping reduce abortions. It’s really not a legislative issue at all. It’s a heart issue, and to reduce abortions, we need to change people’s hearts.
Ah, but it’s easier to just change the law.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I’m with you sister. I’m SOOO SOOOO SOOOOOO tired! I just posted a bunch of scripture that forms my voting decision. I love you friend!
November 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
[...] I meant to link to this post earlier, entitled “I Would Really Like to See Roe v Wade Overturned (But Not For the Reasons You May Think)!“ Better late than never. I am completely with this gal on wishing that abortion [...]