There's a lot of controversy about Mr. Trump's
alleged prochoiceness based on beliefs he held
17 years ago. Kinda odd, considering
very few of us hold the same political views we did in
1999. But it did get me thinking about this issue, so here I'm going to breakdown the issue of abortion with an objective look, so that we can vote with facts, not emotions and 17 year old videos.
Before I begin, for full disclosure, I am a pro life liberal. A minority, I know, but worth noting. I used to be on the fence, before I had my son a little over 5 years ago. I leaned prochoice, mind you, but what changed my mind was when those ultra sound abortion videos hit youtube. I won't link them because the mere thought makes me tremor with horror and fear. The other thing was my son, and his dynamic interaction in the womb with outside noise, and anything that would touch his mom's stomach.
So it's believable that life experience with children can make you prolife. Whether you choose to believe Trump is up to you, but it's worth noting that if it is true, it is not unique to him.
Roe vs. Wade - Impact
Roe vs. Wade, unbeknownst to many, does not ban anti-abortion laws altogether. Remember that Texas bill that Wendy Davis famously filibustered? Part of it banned any abortions past the first 20 weeks. How is that possible if Roe vs. Wade protects the right to abortion? Because it actually doesn't, or well, it sort of doesn't.
Originally, it banned anti-abortion laws, but only pertaining to the 1st and 2nd Trimester. 3rd Trimester abortions could be banned and still can, by the states. I am unclear on whether the federal government can, so I will assume it can't. In 1992, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey changed this so that abortion can now be banned beyond any time period that science can prove "fetal viability". And the states have to make an exception if the woman's life is threatened. There's also a privacy thing attached to this, but I'd rather focus on abortion itself.
So the real impact is that States have to do the banning, and only when they can prove, with science, that the fetus is likely alive. It's bad if you're a pro-lifer, mind you, but it's not as terrible as some are making it out to be. And even I, as a pro-lifer, find it reasonable to make an exception when the woman's life is threatened.
Roe vs. Wade - Overturning
Right, so, here's the thing about overturning Roe vs. Wade, it's not as simple as appointing a couple of justices and calling it a day. Mathematically, that's sort of true, sort of, but there's a lot more to it than that.
First, you have to actually get your case heard. The current caseload per year, is over 10,000. That's
the official number of the SCOTUS itself. How many do they actually hear each year? It varies per year, but tends to be less than 150. Even if we were to reduce the caseload to 1,000, that's still not great odds of getting your case heard. You can increase your odds by getting a chief justice who desperately wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and maybe John Roberts does, but it's not certain by any means.
Then there's the matter of appointments. The 3 ways a justice can be replaced is if they step down, are found mentally unstable, or die. That's it, you can't rely on them to retire, they may, and one or two likely will over the next 8 years, but it's not guaranteed. And in a day and age where people live to be over 100, the oldest is Ginsberg at 82. It's not unimaginable that there won't be a replacement in the next 8 years. And while you could probably make the case that a couple of them really are mentally unstable, good luck trying to make it happen without people calling it a political show.
But even ignoring all that, let's just pretend we can replace all nine of them right now with prolife justices. A funny thing about the supreme court is that justices have historically been unpredictable, Justice Kennedy is an excellent example of that. There are reasons for this, some of them put law above politics, and some sell themselves one way to get appointed, only to prove the opposite on the bench. The point is, even in the best case scenerio, it's still not a certainty that we would be successful in overturning Roe vs. Wade. Mind you, it probably would succeed in this case, but it's not 100%.
Partial Birth Abortion
If it's not already banned it should be, straight up. Already went through the pregnancy and childbirth, but are killing the kid anyway? Yeah-no.
Backroom Butcher Problem
Many prochoicers point out that if we were to ban abortion today, it may just be replaced by more brutal black market abortions. It's probably less true than they say, as black market surgeries of any kind are unsanitary, often painful, and difficult to hide the evidence thereof. But it's a legit point. To me though, what this says is that our first step in banning abortion should be to provide alternatives. Easy access to contraceptives is one thing, but the problem is that this often causes people to have a lot more sex, offsetting the effect somewhat.
A surrogate mother program, to hook up unwanted pregnancies, with people having trouble conceiving can help, but will probably lead to large disparities on one side or the other. Perhaps pouring research into artifical wombs for an eventual pre-birth adoption program?
Conclusion
Abortion can and needs to be banned, but it can't and won't happen right now. And we need to look at the whole picture, and ban it right when the time does come.
The time will not come within the next 8 years though, and probably won't even come in the next 20. So let's calm down and quit freaking out about this. Trump is most likely genuine when he says he is pro-life. But even if he were the most hard core pro-lifer, there'd be little he could do as president anyway.