The Supreme Court has recently experienced two vacancies with the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The retirement of O’Connor has given hope to pro-lifers that the numerous pro-choice decisions by the Supreme Court—most notably Roe v. Wade—may be overturned. As of now, five of the justices remaining on the bench back Roe v. Wade: Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy. However, there have been rumors that Justice Stevens is seriously considering retirement. If that happens, many from both sides of the political spectrum have argued that the Supreme Court justices whom President Bush nominates could very well be the deciding factor in the controversial Roe v. Wade. Despite that, I think the probability that Roe v. Wade would be overturned and abortion outlawed in the United States is extremely low and for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

The largest problem that pro-lifers have to deal with is something that engulfs Washington: compromise. As this article is being written, the Senate is only days away from confirming John Roberts’ nomination, and President Bush has not yet chosen another person to fill the empty seat on the bench. Many political analysts believe that Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales, the current Attorney General; others believe that Bush will nominate a woman to fill the void left by O’Connor. But whomever he chooses will most likely be a moderate in his or her views. Many conservatives argue that Bush even compromised by nominating Roberts who has not really indicated whether he would support an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

In addition to compromise, history is against pro-lifers. It is extremely rare for the Supreme Court to overturn decisions that were passed by an earlier court—especially controversial decisions. The nation is almost perfectly divided down the middle in regard to abortion. Would pro-life Supreme Court justices take the risk of being the ones who caused the outlaw of one of the most extremely contested and touchy issues in the United States? Perhaps this would be possible if the majority of the Supreme Court was hard-line pro-life; however, the current Supreme Court is one of the most moderate benches in the history of the United States. Also, conservative politicians have their jobs at stake. It is conceivable that the Republican Party could lose many of its seats in Congress, as well as the presidency, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. Most politicians will do whatever they need to in order to keep their jobs. If that means avoiding the touchy topic of Roe v. Wade, many pro-life politicians will compromise their view on abortion.

But what if Roe v. Wade were overturned? That would mean abortion would be illegal in the United States, right? Not likely. Roe v. Wade only made it illegal for states to outlaw abortion altogether: “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term” (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/). What would happen if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade? The decision of whether to make abortion legal or illegal would revert to each individual state. Peter Samuelson, the president of Americans United for Life, points out that abortion would still be legal in the majority of states if Roe v. Wade is overturned. “Americans need to realize that even if Roe was overturned tomorrow, there would be no significant legal change because abortion would be legal in at least 43 states” (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49879). The majority of those who want to have an abortion would remain unaffected, and those who live in states that outlaw abortion would need only to travel a few hours to reach a state where abortion is legal.

So it appears that this Supreme Court will not make major strides in outlawing abortion. Despite this, there are still many abortion issues that this Supreme Court will deal with. Partial-birth abortion and parental notification for teenagers are two of the main concerns. The best that pro-lifers could hope for would be for the Supreme Court to ban partial-birth abortion and make it more difficult for teenagers to have an abortion. This seems like a compromise to many pro-lifers. Yes, over a million babies would still be aborted each year, but at least these restrictions would be a step in the right direction.

Home Page     This Issue's Contents