6 myths about Roe v. Wade, debunked

6 myths about Roe v. Wade, debunked

Outside contributors’ opinions and analysis of the most important issues in politics, science, and culture. President Donald Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which puts Roe v. Wade in serious peril. Proponents of criminalizing abortion are, and should be, pleased with this development. But some people claiming to be pro-abortion rights have argued that they’re okay with Roe being overruled too — on the grounds that the decision was poorly reasoned and that it choked off democratic debate prematurely. “Let Roe go,” urged Megan McArdle of the Washington Post last week , even as she explained she believed as a general matter that women ought to be free to choose abortion. This might seem like idiosyncratic contrarianism. But for many years pro-choice/anti- Roe punditry has been a genre unto itself , with columnist after columnist asserting that overruling Roe wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Benjamin Wittes, for example, predicted in the Atlantic, in 2005, that “in the absence of Roe abortion rights would probably be protected by the laws of most states relatively quickly.” “Access to abortion wouldn’t necessarily become less widely available than it is now,” agreed Jeffrey Rosen, in the same magazine the next year . But sometimes an argument is counterintuitive because it’s wrong, and that’s the case here. Still, it’s an argument worthy of attention. McArdle’s column serves as a useful target for analysis because it brings together into one place a lot of common fallacies about Roe , fallacies […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.