Politics: Abortion as a Dangling Carrot

I can’t take credit for the idea; Some Princeton professor who is infinitely more creative and experienced than I conceived this little thought experiment (note I didn’t say more intelligent). But in any event, I will share my concurrence.

Many (insert derogatory adjective) voters are of the one-issue variety. And most of these are the abortion kind. Better than the apathetic party dwellers, but still, uninformed. Blind sheep if you will, they limit the abortion debate to good versus evil or freedom versus oppression. Often, they insult the Bible and the Constitution by only recognizing convenient verses.


I recognize abortion as an issue, a very important, relevant, and culturally defining issue. One which deserves much attention, but to lessen the complexity of a candidate’s individual ideology and policy to one belief is at best, lazy.

Because the President has no bearing on overturning a constitutional legitimacy claim (i.e. abortion as a privacy right under the 14th Amendment) except in a Supreme Court appointment, it follows that one-issue abortion voters’ votes are only practically successful if a President does appoint a Justice who upholds their abortion opinions in the court. Let’s be honest, principal doesn’t do much for dead babies or privacy rights if the court doesn’t change precedent.

So with all this hoopla surrounding Roe and Alito, it is cognizant to discuss the history. Decades have passed since Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (confirming Roe and establishing specific guidelines) were argued and decided. Over ten cases have been argued since, and have all upheld the privacy rights of women.

And during most of these battles, there were a majority of Republican appointed judges. Not to assert that all Republican judges are anti-abortion, but based on the voting record of millions of Americans, for their sake, I would hope there is some parallel. In other words, I would be pretty upset if I voted solely on the possibility that a President could get the chance to appoint a nominee with my views on abortion (legally, not personally), and given that chance, the president I chose did not come through. I would feel back-stabbed. But as is, life is not fair.

As earlier stated, these predominantly conservative (at least when appointed) Supreme Court Justices continuously reaffirm Roe. I will not argue the constitutionality of abortion, for although I disagree with him more than not, Scalia offers a troublingly logical dissent for Casey. Therefore, it is obvious I am not read enough to offer more than immature arguments. But what I can do successfully is offer an explanation which I believe is very plausible.

It is normal to wonder why Roe has not been overturned with a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. But it could be contended that it will never be overturned, but not for any constitutional or even moral reasons, but scarily, for political ones. What would happen to the moral base if Roe was reversed? Would their motivation to get out and vote be curtailed? And what about all those soccer mom’s who (many of which have had abortions) agree with privacy rights but vote Republican because they see Roe as untouchable. Would they become one-issue voters for the other side if abortion was made illegal? Now I’m not saying that this is a conservative undertaking, for there are many fervent pro-choice voters out there. But for mere fairness, the bench is mostly conservative, so the responsibility lies mostly with them.

So. Roe is even more political than we thought. And this is not as conspiracy theorist as you might think. I believe it, and for those of you who don’t know me, I am the ultimate realist. Would it not completely change the political field of play if Roe was overturned? Wouldn’t the conservatives lose motivation for an entire sect of their base? So why would they overturn it? It is a beautiful carrot dangling over one-issue voters’ heads. It is motivation. It means votes.

Roe won’t be overturned.