Panicked abortion activists: This election could mean the end of Roe v. Wade

In the wake of pro-lifers retaking the White House and keeping Congress, abortion advocates fear it’s only a matter of time before they take over the remaining part of the federal government, the Supreme Court—and that with it, Roe v. Wade’s 43-year reign of terror might finally come to an end.

At Cosmopolitan, Robin Marty frets (hat tip to Life News) that it “could well mean the end of safe, legal abortion in the country.” (Say, is “safe, legal abortion” a medical term? I seem to recall pro-aborts being sticklers for that sort of thing.)

Slight correction: we do indeed quest to end abortion, but not through the court system. Overturning Roe would only directly end abortion in fifteen states with unenforced abortion bans currently on the books, and abortion advocates in those states would be free to attempt to persuade their fellow residents or their legislators to repeal those bans.

All we want from the courts is to get out of the democratic process’s way, both because it’s the constitutionally right thing to do and because we’re confident that as long as we have the chance to make our case in the court of public opinion, legislatures and electorates can get us the rest of the way. Speaking of making our case in the court of public opinion, it seems that when people learn what’s involved in an abortion, they’re more likely to change their minds about it:

Watch their minds change on abortion

If Marty and her fellow travelers truly possess the confidence they normally project that abortion is a settled women’s right in the minds of the American public, they should welcome a fair fight. What do you say?

Indeed. Replacing Scalia with somebody from Trump’s strong list of judicial nominees would prevent the cementing of a clear pro-abortion majority, but beyond that it would just restore the status quo from before Scalia died. The real revolution starts when the next vacancies arise—which could absolutely come during Trump’s first term. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer are 80, 83, and 78 years old, respectively, and there are already reports that Ginsburg and Breyer “are expected to retire” around or before the 2018 midterm congressional elections.

Of course, it will depend on whether Trump sticks to his nominee list (which, as commentator Hugh Hewitt explains, Senate Republicans can force him to if necessary), but we could just be a few years away from a 6-3 pro-life, pro-Constitution majority on the Supreme Court. From there, it’s a simple matter for a pro-life legislature and governor to enact test-case legislation forcing the court to revisit Roe.

Gee, if only birth control was readily available for prices ranging from free to $9 per month without Planned Parenthood or government programs…

Correct, Robin. Isn’t it exciting?

Consider this: when we’re talking about abortion in the context of judges, we’re not talking about its moral legitimacy, whether it should be banned, its impact on society, any of that. We’re strictly talking about one secular, empirical, legal, historical, value-neutral question: whether the Constitution contains a right to it. Not whether one should be there, not whether to amend it to put one there, but whether someone else put one there when writing any part of it. That’s it.

And the objective, inarguable truth (you don’t have to believe us on that, pro-aborts; believe scholars who agree with you that abortion “rights” are a good thing) is that the “right to choose” simply isn’t there. Not in the text, not in the amendments, not in the ratification debates, not even in the “penumbras” (because the penumbras are imaginary).

So really, if the Supreme Court does end up overturning Roe in the not-too-distant future, abortion advocates will have no legitimate grounds to object—unless they want to openly admit that they believe in abusing the law to get the outcomes they want.

If Roe falls, America could be on track to answer two vitally important abortion questions: whether America can survive without abortion, and whether the abortion movement can live under a Constitution.

Pro-lifers already know the answer to the first question, but the jury’s still out on the second one.