Unpopular Opinion-What Would Really Happen If Roe vs Wade Were Overturned?

Awhile back, LifeSiteNews had an article, US Senator Vows to Vote for Only Supreme Court Nominees Who Will Overturn Abortion Ruling. I thought about sharing it, but I thought I'd use it as a springboard to writing this post instead.

Whilst I admire Senator Hawley's passionate commitment to the pro-life cause I have to wonder if it is a winning strategy? And the answer to my question is that, no, I don't think it is. There are two reasons I say this. The first is that he is assuming that a President will nominate judges who have made this sort of commitment. I seriously doubt that this will happen. An open, avowed anti-abortion judge would be too 'divisive' and would undoubtedly not be confirmed because of the 'divisiveness'. Presidents don't like losing nomination battles, so they shy away from candidates who will likely not be confirmed.

But the second, and most important reason, is that overturning Roe vs Wade will do very little to stem the tide of the murder of the unborn. I know this is an unpopular opinion and that the pro-life movement has spent its energy for over 40 years in trying to achieve the goal of overturning the decision.

But where would we be if Roe vs Wade were overturned? We would be right back where we were before the decision, with abortion law being in the hands of the States, but with one major difference.

That difference is that in the intervening 47 years since the decision, several States have expanded the 'right' to murder a pre-born child and some have gone so far as to enshrine it as a 'constitutional right' in the State Constitution (Yo, New York! I'm looking at you!).

There have been various unsuccessful 'Human Life' Amendments to the US Constitution introduced to overturn the decision. However, with the exception of the Hogan Amendment (which would have also outlawed 'euthanasia'), they have taken one of two tacks: 1) returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States, or 2) Constitutionally removing the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts over cases involving abortion under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, both of which would have the same effect.

Before Roe, 18 States allowed abortions with either some or no restrictions. As the law now stands, if Roe were overturned and jurisdiction was returned to the States, 40(!) States would allow abortions with either some limits or none. Some of those 40 do have so-called 'trigger laws', that would take effect immediately on Roe being overturned. Some States have trigger laws that will ban or limit any abortions. Others have laws that would only ban late term murder of the unborn child, but 23 (five more than pre-Roe vs Wade) of them would automatically become open to ANY abortion, including late-term.

The problem with the so-called 'trigger laws' is that all of them that I'm familiar with do not ban ALL abortions. Without exception, they are written with loopholes, with the 'health of the mother' being the most common.

Whilst it sounds compassionate, the 'health of the mother' is a loophole so big you could drive a Mack truck through it! All it would take in, almost every state with such a law, is a statement from two or three qualified doctors that the woman's health is dependent on the murder of her unborn child. I'm sure those doctors would not be hard to find, and I'm equally sure if a woman found one such doctor, he'd have a 'friend' or two who would be glad to sign the statement (maybe for a kickback out of the hitman's fee?).

Those 23 State that will have no restrictions whatever if Roe is overturned, include such prime 'vacation spots' as California, Hawaii, and New York. The rest are scattered all over the country from Delaware and Massachusetts on the East Coast to Oregon and Washington on the West and from New Mexico, Texas, and Georgia in the South to Minnesota and Montana in the North. In other words, unless she lives in Alaska which has a trigger law for any abortion, any woman who wants to kill her unborn child won't have to travel very far to do it.

Even States we tend to think of as conservative and pro-life, such as Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, and Nebraska have only trigger laws for late term abortions, so a woman who wants to commit murder in one of those States just needs to be proactive and 'git er done' before the 'late term' restriction kicks in.

If we are serious about stopping the holocaust of abortion in the US, what we really need is an Amendment to the US Constitution along the lines of the Hogan Amendment, which I mentioned earlier. It was introduced by Rep. Lawrence Hogan (R-MD) on January 30, 1973, under H.J.Res. 261. It reads,

Section 1. Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being, from the moment of conception, of life without due process of law; nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being of life on account of illness, age, or incapacity.

Section 3. Congress and the several States shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, in my opinion, unpopular tho' it may be, instead of trying to overturn Roe vs Wade, we should be concentrating our energies on passing and ratifying an Amendment to the US Constitution that will actually stop child killing, not just make it a bit more difficult to do.