The Student Newspaper of Mississippi State University

The Reflector

The Student Newspaper of Mississippi State University

The Reflector

The Student Newspaper of Mississippi State University

The Reflector

    Abortion needs restrictions

    The landmark case Roe v. Wade, which established abortion rights in America, is one of the more flawed court decisions in recent history. Leading liberal scholars and abortion rights advocates like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have even made the argument that Roe was a constitutional stretch. Even the case’s namesake, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), is now a pro-life advocate who travels across America in opposition to abortion.
    The court found that restricting abortions is a violation of a woman’s privacy. I believe privacy, although not an explicit constitutional right, is most definitely an implied right that represents the essence of living in a free society. That said, I am still of the firm belief that Roe was an attempt to decriminalize an action that many wanted to see legalized but didn’t have the popular support to do it.
    In 1973, the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed abortion rights. Many argued a so-called right shouldn’t be subjected to the whim of the public. Oh, how the times change. Now advocates argue the majority of Americans support abortion and that it should be preserved.
    America gets the reputation of a conservative “United States of Jesus.” Even with the religious vibrations of our nation, we have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the Western World, which makes even the most secular nations shudder.
    It’s true the majority of Americans support some abortion rights, but what is always missed is that the support is conditional. Unfortunately, the debate gets nasty, and the fault lines are drawn on both sides.
    “Unhand my uterus, you old white man!” This is the typical response to any efforts on the legislative level to restrict abortions in any way. This is not only simplistic but also plain out wrong. In actuality, men support abortion rights at about the same level as women. The truth is the vast majority of Americans only support abortion in cases involving rape, incest, saving the mother’s life and very early stages of a pregnancy.
    Wirthline Worldwide found in 2004 that 10 percent of Americans believed abortion should never be legal, 16 percent believed abortion should be legal only for the mother’s life, and 29 percent believed abortion should be legal only for life, rape and incest. A total of 54 percent of Americans support no abortions or strict restrictions.
    In the same study, 25 percent believe abortion should be legal for any reason during the first three months, 6 percent believe abortion should be legal for any reason during the first six months, and nine percent believed abortion should always be legal. This is a total of 40 percent, with 5 percent refusing to answer.
    A whopping 69 percent of Americans in one poll oppose partial-birth abortion, yet abortion advocates are fighting tooth and nail to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which ended a practice that induces the birth of a fully developed child only to end its life.
    With the recent legislative actions in our state and in South Dakota, the issue is sure to come to the forefront. With the departure of Sandra Day O’Connor, many abortion advocates fear Roe v. Wade will be overturned with the crucial vote of her successor, Samuel Alito.
    This is totally hysterical. At best, there are four votes in favor of ending Roe and five votes to sustain unlimited abortion rights. The number could be even lower since we don’t really know how Alito and Roberts will vote. The new swing vote is Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee. Many of these same abortion rights activists said women would die from unsafe abortions if Kennedy was confirmed. Fast forward 20 years and he is a reliable vote for abortion rights. The only right that is in peril is access to partial-birth abortion, which Justice Kennedy opposes.
    If the case is brought to the Supreme Court, anti-abortion advocates will probably be disappointed as the court’s make-up isn’t in their favor. If Roe is affirmed next year, then the issue probably won’t be addressed for another generation, and we will still have unrestricted access to abortion.
    Although I would prefer to live in a nation where all states respected life, the best possible court action would be to allow the states to decide for themselves what restrictions to place on abortions. At the very least, abortion should be restricted to the very early stages.

    Leave a Comment
    More to Discover

    Comments (0)

    All The Reflector Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Activate Search
    The Student Newspaper of Mississippi State University
    Abortion needs restrictions