Support Choice, Not Roe


Ah, the shifting sands of the abortion debate. Support Choice, Not Roe is the title of Richard Cohen’s op-ed in the Washington Post. I disagree with him of course on abortion, but I generally agree with him on this particular issue.

For liberals, the trick is to untether abortion rights from Roe . The former can stand even if the latter falls. The difficulty of doing this is obvious. Roe has become so encrusted with precedent that not even the White House will say how Harriet Miers would vote on it, even though she is rigorously antiabortion and politically conservative. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.

In fact, there is just as much debate on the right — are the unborn protected under the constitution, or is there just no protection either way? I fall under the latter camp — abortion and the unborn are not contemplated in the constitution. There are others who disagree. Either way, it would seem, if Roe were overturned, abortion would not end. States, however, would have the right to regulate it.

It is, again, silly that abortion is a protected constitutional right. What other medical procedure has such constitutional standing? None.

About the author

Erick Erickson


  • Linda displays a special kind of daftness, but out of a spirit of infinite charity, I’ll spell it out (I shoulda been a special-ed teacher):

    Keep the Jew-stuff out of it, okay? Most of us happen to be very nice people, and despite what you may have heard at your secret meetings, we don’t have any plans to abolish the First Amendment for good Christian folk like you. Shalom.

  • copied and pasted from Mr. Roy’s blog so I suppose you believe in free speech?

    “Litotical Construct
    Because what the world needs now is one more self-satisfied would-be opinion-maker.”

  • My initial thought was to quibble with your characterization of abortion as constitutionally unique—contraceptive procedures or sterilization would have the same protection, and actually I’m pretty sure that, say, an appendectomy would have protection if any state actually were to try to ban it, but in the field of medical procedures, only abortion and end-of-life things actually ever get banned, so they’re the only procedures where the question isn’t moot. (And of course _Roe_, as modified by _Casey_, already allows regulation of abortion; hence the standard of “undue burden.”)

    But I have a different reason for writing now: Linda’s comment as of 9:05 this morning is absolutely disgusting. And while I really hesitate to blame the blogger for the sins of the commenters, I think this one may be sufficiently extreme to warrant repudiation or removal.

  • Well the neocons got their way. Harriet Miers has been pulled out of the fray. I suppose America can only be good if we have perhaps another Jew appointed to the Supreme Court. The Christians are being shoved right out of the United States.

  • A quote from the above site: Interesting, most should agree:

    Abortion is “child-murder… We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil…It is practiced by those whose innermost souls revolt from the dreadful dead.” — Susan B. Anthony in The Revolution (1868-1869)


    Dear Melissa,

    If you got to this link, you can see the statistics of the ages for girls and women that have abortions. I believe you can watch a video of a live abortion with an ultrasound photo being ran during the procedure. You can see the baby sucking its thumb peacefully in its sanctuary of life with a heart beat and slowly moving. Then you will see the heart beat increase as the abortion instrument enters the womb, before it has even touched the baby. Then you will see the silent scream, as the abortionist starts pulling its tiny body apart.

    If you have had children of your own, then I cannot understand your thought process. Our country has gone down a cruel path that has allowed this type of murder to take place, and if girls and women are showed the facts before having an abortion, I can guarantee you that abortions would be reduced to almost zero. We can not afford the immoral disregard for human life. The welfare costs should not even be an issue.

  • If the baby wasn’t in someone else’s body then it wouldn’t have to be a medical procedure protected by constitutional standing. No other medical procedure requires the right of one person to be compromised for another. A woman should not be forced to make a decision about her body by the government.

    I also have a question if abortion is murder should the people who have abortions go to jail on murder charges?

    Also what are you going to do with the influx of children whose parents dont want them? The increase in welfare costs?

  • It is, again, silly that abortion is a protected constitutional right. What other medical procedure has such constitutional standing? None.

    No, it is what any other form of murder has such constitutional standing!

By Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

Get in touch

You can check me out across the series of tubes known as the internet.