The Dispatch
Share this post
How Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Could Change Our Abortion Debate
thedispatch.com

How Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Could Change Our Abortion Debate

Roe ignited a backlash. Setting a tighter standard for abortion rights would be good for the country politically and culturally.

Jonah Goldberg
May 21, 2021
75
247
Share this post
How Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Could Change Our Abortion Debate
thedispatch.com
(Photograph by Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images.)

The Supreme Court recently announced it will take up Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to a Mississippi law that all but bans abortions after 15 weeks. It’s the first case in years that could result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that, along with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, legalized abortion on demand everywhere in the country. 

A ruling probably won’t come until next summer, which is plenty of time for everyone to lose their minds.

The outright overturning of Roe is just one possibility, and not necessarily the most likely. My colleague David French, a prominent lawyer and court watcher, argues that the most likely outcome is a narrower ruling that upholds Dobbs without fully overturning Roe. This, French writes, would establish a “new standard that permits greater abortion regulation without explicitly permitting abortion bans.” It’s anyone’s guess what that standard would be, but one possibility is keeping abortion fully legal in the first trimester while permitting states to impose greater restrictions afterward. 

For ardent abortion-rights activists, this would be a massive setback and would be denounced as a calamity. But since roughly 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, one could argue that it would go a long way toward making the right to most abortions more constitutionally and politically secure than ever before. If so, pro-life activists might be just as mad as their pro-choice opponents. 

Of course, pro-lifers would be even angrier if the Supreme Court, now with six conservative justices, overturned Dobbs and upheld Roe entirely. But that seems unlikely given that the court took up the case in the first place. 

I think Roe should be overturned because it was a fatally flawed constitutional ruling. Reasonable people can disagree on that—though finding reasonable disagreement when it comes to these issues is pretty rare. 

But I think overturning Roe or simply upholding Dobbs and setting a tighter standard would be good for the country politically and culturally. Even the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg was troubled by the “breathtaking” sweep of Roe, which imposed an abortion-on-demand regime across the country and essentially created the pro-life movement. If the court had been more “measured” (RBG’s word), states would have been able to work out more reasonable and more politically secure regulations, avoiding the backlash Roe ignited. 

Abortion is just one fault line, albeit a huge one, in the tectonic political and cultural stresses our country faces. But it’s also emblematic of them. Fights over the Supreme Court are so grotesque because the institutions that were designed to handle political fights aren’t doing their job. The courts weren’t intended to craft political compromises. They certainly weren’t intended to pick winners and losers in policy fights for the whole country, at least not the policy fights that are properly hammered out by legislatures and elections. Justices aren’t monarchs. 

The same holds for the presidency, too. At least the president is elected. But for decades, presidents have increasingly legislated from the Oval Office through executive orders and administrative gimmicks. When a president from the other party comes in, he feels obligated to reverse the previous president’s diktats and then issue his own. 

The rise of populism on the right and the left is a direct result of people feeling as if the decisions affecting their lives—or reflecting their values—are made by politicians, judges and bureaucrats. 

Abortion advocates, and even some abortion opponents, make it sound as if overturning Roe is synonymous with banning abortions outright. That wouldn’t happen. Instead, the power to regulate abortion would fall back to the states, but also Congress to some extent. If that happened, abortion would remain legal in states where abortion rights are popular, such as California and New York. 

Yes, it might be banned or severely curtailed in places such as Mississippi. I can understand why abortion rights advocates would find that dismaying, just as I can understand why opponents would find, say, California’s post-Roe system appalling. 

But here’s the thing: Those people could make their case. They could campaign for politicians who agree with them, and those politicians could hammer out compromises with politicians who don’t. It could get ugly, but it would be healthier than what we have now.

247
Share this post
How Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Could Change Our Abortion Debate
thedispatch.com
247 Comments

Create your profile

0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)

Skip for now

Only Dispatch Members only can comment on this post

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Check your email

For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.

Logical
May 21, 2021

As a prochoice ultra liberal, I welcome the abolition of Roe, and return of the decisions to states.

- antiabortionists will no longer have a cause to divide the nation. Fights within the states are not as grifty for con artists.

- the con artists will find it difficult to promote their fellow con (a life long choicer with a defunct charity and a defrauding university of grift) as an excuse for Flight 93 elections. Democracy will have less enemies.

- The red states will have caught the proverbial car and wouldn't have a clue what to do with it

- abortion interstate tourism will prevail, with billions of $s at stake. "Christian" daughters and wives would need safe and secure services too.

And here's the kicker: what will the red states do contain "interstate commerce"? Beg for the return of a federal law?

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
34 replies
GregS
May 21, 2021

"since roughly 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, one could argue that it would go a long way toward making the right to most abortions more constitutionally and politically secure than ever before."

I've said it before - this particular talking point is hopelessly naive, wilfully blind, or purposely obtuse.

Right behind the Mississippi law are state laws banning abortions at 8 weeks, 6 weeks, or even earlier. The court is not considering those - and therefore the decision made in Dobbs will simply open the door to circuit courts allowing these other laws to stand. So no, the right to abortion won't be more secure than ever before and it's a sure to argue that.

Second, while I think that the Dobbs time limit (15 weeks) would be fine, if the law is upheld, I guarantee that Mississippi will turn around in a couple of weeks and pass a law banning abortions after 6-8 weeks.

This is a bad argument.

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
11 replies
245 more comments…
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2022 The Dispatch
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Publish on Substack Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing