One More Reason to Support Obamacare

I am constantly criticized by my Republicans friends about the apparent contradictory position of being a pro-life Democrat.  To them this position is contradictory and dishonest.  To me voting with this political platform is irrelevant and insignificant.  Why?  Because whether or not someone is pro-life is a moral argument, and these kind of arguments are mainly used to divide the masses.  They are also nearly impossible to legislate.  Republicans go to the polls to elect pro-life candidates and what they get in return is the Republican agenda: tax subsidies for corporations, increased military spending, tax breaks for the wealthy, and pork spending for major donors that funded the campaigns.  What doesn’t happen is any major change in the moral issues that were instrumental in driving voter turnout.

Let me give a couple examples. From 2002 – 2006 the GOP controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, Governorships, and appointed 7 of 9 Supreme Court seats.  In 2006 they attempted to pass a gay marriage amendment that did not even garner enough Republican support to make it out of the Senate.  They did not challenge Roe v. Wade or push though any lower court case giving the Supreme Court a chance to rule on abortion (they did however find a way to deliver the Affordable Health Care Act to the high court).  In four years of total control the only moral law the GOP passed was the 2003 partial-birth abortion bill, which was a minor feat given the overwhelming bi-partisan support.

Abortion rates have been declining over the past thirty years.  Directly following the passing of Roe v. Wade, 30 of every 1000 women were having abortions.  Today that number has fallen to 19.  What’s even more interesting is the abortion rate experienced its sharpest decline during the Clinton Administration (from 25 to 20 abortions per thousand) and has been relatively flat ever since.  Data suggests abortion rates correlate to the economic conditions of the US (and not who is president).  When the economy is tough, the abortion rate rises as couples rethink their choices about having children, given the financial pressures that raising children bring.

Improving economic conditions is not the only lever to drive down abortion cases.  In 2006 Governor Romney passed a statewide health reform that contracted private insurance companies to provide care for the state’s uninsured.  Directly following the implementation of the law, the state’s abortion rate declined.  The thinking behind this is that expanding healthcare led to greater doctor access, who then could deliver education and access to contraceptives.  Brian Fung of The Atlantic wrote extensively about the Massachusetts findings and made the same argument for the Affordable Health Care Act.

I am quite aware of President Obama’s pro-choice stance, but like his Republican counterparts, his position is empty rhetoric.  President Obama has not signed one piece of legislation or a solitary executive order that expands access to abortion in the US.  In fact, the only abortion-related executive order he has signed denied using federal funds to pay for abortions.  President Obama has passed a significant healthcare bill that makes access to doctors easier for millions of Americans.

When my Republican friends come and lecture me why I should support their pro-life candidates due to moral obligations, I quickly ask what impact will the candidates have on legislating abortion?  Until a reasonable response is articulated, I will continue to vote for the man who made access to contraceptives and doctors available for 20 million additional women.

45 Replies to “One More Reason to Support Obamacare”

  1. You’re probably right about legislation not going anywhere. But that’s because of the makeup of the Supreme Court. In that sense, who we have in the White House is very important if you’re concerned about abortion law and policy.

    1. No, even considering Supreme Court nominations, Republican/Democrat presidents have had no significant effect on abortion law, post-Roe v. Wade: “From 2002 – 2006 the GOP controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, Governorships, **and appointed 7 of 9 Supreme Court seats**.” Republicans had everything in place to reverse it, if they were ever going to. I believe something like 2/3 of the justices of lower courts were/are also Republican-appointed. President Obama has appointed two liberal Supreme Court Justices in his first term, but they replaced liberal justices (Souter and Stevens) so the court remained ideologically unchanged. Currently, 5 of 9 seats are Republican-appointed. So while, in theory, a president could influence abortion law through judicial appointments, history has shown that it is extremely unlikely. Truthfully, if I voted based, even in part, on a candidate’s abortion stance, I would feel shortchanged–Republicans have failed to deliver in that regard.

      1. No doubt pro lifers are disappointed with some of the judges appointed by GOP presidents. But the fact remains that as long as Roe v Wade is upheld by the Supreme Court no real action can be taken legislatively.

        So again, if your issue is abortion as it relates to Roe v Wade, then who is in the White House should be very important to you.

  2. You can go further back than 2002 to show that who is in the White House and their Supreme Court nominations have played no part in abortion law.

    – 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices that heard Roe v Wade were appointed by Republican Presidents. 5 of them voted in favor of Roe.

    – Since Roe v Wade 12 new Supreme Court Justices have been appointed. 8 of the 12 (2 to 1) have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

    – Out of the 21 Supreme Court Justices since 1973, including those that heard Roe v Wade, 14 (2 to 1) of them were appointed by Republican Presidents.

    – In the 41 years since the Roe v Wade decision we have had 25 years of Republican Presidents and 16 years of Democrat Presidents. Almost twice as many years of Republican Presidents and twice as many Supreme Court Nominations by Republican Presidents have produced nothing to overturn Roe v Wade.

    1. I think you’re missing my point.

      Because Roe v Wade effectively made abortion policy and took it out of the hands of Congress or the states, no real abortion legislation will be introduced. So to attack the GOP for not introducing abortion legislation is a false argument.

      If you want to argue that the GOP talks a big game when it comes abortion, but that their Supreme Court nominees haven’t backed up the rhetoric, then you likely have a point.

      1. Cameron, I don’t think your comment was meant to be a response to my post, because I think you just made my point stronger and I never said anything about legislation.

        I don’t attack the GOP for not introducing abortion legislation, because I agree with you, the courts have taken it out of the Legislative hands. I do agree that the GOP talks a big game when it comes to abortion, and that is why I don’t base my vote for President on that issue. That doesn’t mean it is not an important issue to me, I am very Pro-Life.

        You tried to make the argument that the make-up of the Supreme Court is to fault for why Roe v Wade has not been overturned. I was simply pointing out that the make-up of the Supreme Court since and during the Roe v Wade decision has been made up of twice as many Republican appointed Justices as Democrats. The Republicans have also had nearly twice as many years in office to do something about it as the Democrats.

        You have stated twice that “if your issue is abortion as it relates to Roe v Wade, then who is in the White House should be very important to you”, and that is an empty argument that has no historical support.

        1. Ah, I mistook Dean for Tim.

          The post itself stakes out the argument that “When my Republican friends come and lecture me why I should support their pro-life candidates due to moral obligations, I quickly ask what impact will the candidates have on legislating abortion?”

          To which I say as long as a majority of Supreme Court justices support Roe v Wade, legislation doesn’t matter. We apparently agree on this point.

          The larger point is that if abortion is of primary concern to you, then voting for a strong pro-life president is the only way to change the law. Clearly, either not every GOP president has been that strong pro-life politician, or the Justices they have appointed weren’t as strong as had been believed. I think both are correct, though I would largely lay the blame on the president. But the choice a pro-life voter has remains either an obvious pro choice Supreme Court Justice nominating democratic president or a hopefully pro-life Supreme Court Justice nominating republican president.

          It is simply fact that the only avenue to dramatically change abortion policy in the United States is by electing a strong pro-life president.

          1. Cameron, I’m not sure how mistaking Dean for me changes anything: all of Dean’s points further (and better) substantiate my own point. The crux of my comment was this: “So while, in theory, a president could influence abortion law through judicial appointments, history has shown that it is extremely unlikely.”

            I believe your comment, “either not every GOP president has been that strong pro-life politician, or the Justices they have appointed weren’t as strong as had been believed,” is a false choice (unless degree of pro-lifeness is determined by the extent to which a president seeks and appoints activist judges to repeal Roe v. Wade). I believe a third, and more accurate, possibility is that, despite his pro-life personal views, no Republican president has ever intended to make repealing Roe v. Wade a priority. Five Republican presidents and 14 judicial nominations without any changes to Roe v. Wade should make that evident. Abortion is a talking point to fire up the base during campaign season. Once elected, most presidents pursue less controversial issues where they can appease a larger constituency.

  3. Cameron, I think you meant to say,

    It is simply fact that the only avenue to dramatically change abortion policy in the United States is by electing a strong pro-life president, and have more than one Supreme Court vacancy during his term, and that he unconstitutionally use a litmus test to nominate replacements, and have a majority Republican Senate that is willing to confirm the nominations, and that there be a current abortion case being argued in lower courts, and then at least one of those cases move up through the appeal process and offer new arguments necessary to be considered by the Supreme Court, and then for those new Supreme Court Justices to actually vote conservatively as intended, despite the fact that historically supposedly conservative Justices have not voted in favor of over-turning Roe v Wade in previous abortion cases since 1973.

    I think you have over-simplified the President’s role in this whole process. Republican presidents are 0 for 14 in nominating Justices to overturn Roe v Wade. That record can’t all be 5 different Republican President’s fault can it?

  4. Fellas, this is really quite simple. The fact is that the only way to change Roe v Wade is to change the Supreme Court and the only way to change the Supreme Court is through the presidency.

    Now, you’ve both made cases that changing the Court is very difficult, and that when it comes to abortion policy the results have been mixed at best. You could say that because of this very low possibility of success it would be silly to bank your vote on that slim hope. But as I’ve said a number of times now, if abortion is of supreme importance to you as a voter, then the presidency is really the only avenue you have to effect change. Period.

  5. Cameron, that has got to be the most liberal use of the term, “mixed at best” I think I have ever heard. Don’t you have to have at least one contrary result for them to be mixed?

    Your statement that the only way to change Roe v Wade is through the presidency is like saying that the Jazz can’t beat the Lakers unless the referee throws the ball up at tip off. While technically it is true, it is a fact that does nothing to predict the outcome of the game. What you are proposing, is that the referee ignore and break the rules of the game and make calls to ensure that the Jazz win the game. I am a huge Jazz fan, and I want almost more than anything for them to beat the Lakers. Having said that, I would never want the referee interfering to make sure the Jazz win, because next week the Jazz are playing the Spurs and I don’t want that referee making calls in the Spur’s favor.

    The false premise that you would have us believe is that the referee is actually a player in the game. That premise tears down the foundation of the constitution and the separation of powers it outlines. A constitution that I believe is divinely inspired and offers the largest protection of individual freedoms and rights of any country on earth. I may not agree with every decision the Supreme Court makes, just as I don’t agree with every decision that the President or Legislature make, but it is fundamentally important that those powers remain separate. The role of the Supreme Court is to ensure that while the majority rules, the minority’s rights are protected.

    Just because you say something is simple, doesn’t make it simple, and just because you say something a number of times doesn’t make it accurate. You are basing your very simple assertion on a procedural aspect of the constitution and on which team the candidate says he’s rooting for.

    Nobody is arguing that the President doesn’t plays a role in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. But to further imply that the President will in any way determine the outcome of future Supreme Court decisions is completely unfounded, unconstitutional, and thankfully, historically unsupported.

    I would also assert that your statement that “the presidency is really the ONLY avenue to effect change” is also misleading “at best” and inaccurate. Just because a president may be inclined to throw the tip closer to one team over another does not mean with any level of certainty that that team will win the game or even has an advantage to winning the game.

    It is irresponsible to make simple assertions of fact based on procedural probabilities and no statistical evidence to support it.

    1. Dean, your Jazz metaphor tells only one half of a story. It assumes Roe v Wade was in the Constitution in the first place. It wasn’t. In 1973 the Supreme Court created a law, and the Supreme Court is the only one who can change it. To celebrate Roe’s activism on the one hand and then cry foul at attempts to use the same method to reverse it is awfully disingenuous. This is what happens when the unelected legislate, and why Roe is bad law.

      When Matthew writes that electing Republicans means nothing for abortion policy because they don’t then propose abortion legislation, he’s assuming the Washington Generals ever had a chance to actually beat the Harlem Globetrotters. As long as the Court makes abortion law, no legislation matters.

      So how does a voter have influence on abortion law? If law were made by my elected officials I could lobby them on behalf of my preferred position. But I have no way to influence the Court directly. I can only influence who the person is who will pick the next justice.

      You keep saying how that has historically not worked well. I agree. But you don’t offer up any other way for a voter to alter abortion law in this country. Absent a better alternative, all I’m left with is my slim hope of a sympathetic president who appoints a justice who agrees with my viewpoint.

  6. Cameron, it was never my intention to tell the whole story of abortion law. I don’t think that is really the point of this discussion. I was hoping that you would recognize that my Jazz metaphor wasn’t really about Roe v Wade, but to show the complexity of the Judicial process and the constitutionally endowed but significantly small role that the President plays in it.

    The question being posed here is whether I should feel morally obligated, as someone with Pro-life beliefs, to vote for a pro-life president. The point that myself, Tim, and Matthew have made is that a vote for a pro-life, or pro-choice for that matter, president has never had any bearing one way or the other on the Supreme Court concerning Roe v Wade and there is no indication that that will change. The reason I have brought up the historical data is not to weigh in on how to overturn the ruling, but to provide evidence to demonstrate that point. Your only point to the contrary is based on a procedural probability that ignores the many outside factors that also influence the future, nullifying any predictable outcome.

    From your last comment it is clear that you and I have some fundamental differences about what a law is, how the framework of the constitution should be applied, and whether or not human rights should be determined by popular vote. I think these differences will prevent this discussion from moving forward.

  7. Cameron, you are going to have to be more specific about which abortion law you want to change, because there are literally hundreds of abortion laws in this country.

  8. Cameron, what is your endgame here? Will your conscience finally be clear if Roe v Wade is overturned? I feel that you may be more concerned with the power struggle between Judicial and Legislative branches than in protecting and promoting human life.

    Your statement that every abortion law in the country is an exercise in playing on the margins, is completely false. Every abortion law actually limits and regulates abortions. That is neither just an exercise nor marginal, and they have done more to limit the scope and applicability of the Roe v Wade decision than any other method. Also there are many abortion laws, including Utah laws, that are in blatant violation of the Roe v Wade decision. These laws are fully enforceable and are the law of the land until they are challenged in court and the Court rules on them. If they even decide to.

    If you are really concerned with protecting and promoting human life, then all these laws, along with democratic policies that increase the accessibility of health care and education, as well as the promotion of medical and scientific research, have proven to do far more to decrease the loss of life than any wide-reaching, rhetoric filled campaign against the Supreme Court or voting for a Pro-Life President ever has. I see the picture as much bigger than Roe v Wade.

    1. My endgame is rebutting a point made by this blog post. It claims that the GOP doesn’t introduce large anti abortion legislation and therefore pro lifers shouldn’t vote for them. There may be reasons to not vote for a GOP candidate, but not introducing abortion legislation isn’t one of them.

      On that note, I appreciate your passionate insistence that legislation has indeed been passed.

      However, at the center of every single piece of legislation is Roe v Wade. This is why a GOP member of Congress doesn’t introduce serious restrictions on abortion. You can hardly blame them, since the Supreme Court decided those laws 40 years ago. If a strong pro life voter wants to really change abortion law in this country then they will target Roe v Wade. This is not disputable.

  9. Really? That is your endgame? To troll websites that you don’t agree with and make inconsistent and contradictory statements in an effort to rebut a blogger? That should be about as effective as voting for a Republican President to over-turn Roe.

    The person that began this whole discussion by saying, “You’re probably right about legislation not going anywhere”, and, “no real action can be taken legislatively”, and again, “no real abortion legislation will be introduced” and finally, “the presidency is really the only avenue you have to effect change”, is now going to try to appropriate my comments relating to legislation to justify voting for a GOP candidate?

    We have abortion laws and regulations in this country in spite of the GOP, not because of them. The GOP’s “all or nothing” position on this issue has delayed many actions that would decrease the actual number of abortions being preformed. The indisputable fact is that there are more abortions being preformed in this country by the inaction of politicians than there should or would be. Partial Birth Abortions would have been banned 8 years prior to when the law was ultimately passed and found constitutional by the Supreme Court because of the stubbornness of the GOP to not add an exception to allow for the consideration of the Health and Life of the mother. (An exception to abortion that the official position of the LDS church also allows for.)

    The GOP wants politicians and uniformed voters to decided if a rapist has the right to father a child and then force his victim to carry and deliver it. The GOP wants politicians and uniformed voters to force a doctor to decide in the operating room whether he is willing to face a jail sentence or censure to protect the life of his patient. The GOP wants politicians and uniformed voters to decide whether an expecting couple should be required to carry, deliver and watch suffer a baby that they know has severe birth defects preventing it from living after childbirth. All of these exceptions to abortion would be acceptable according to the official position of the LDS church but would be left to politicians and popular vote to decide if Roe v Wade is over-turned.

    The fundamental difference between you and I is that I actually want to protect and promote human life and civil liberties. You want to make a political point.

    1. What you’ve written above is simply a defense of Roe. Which is completely unnecessary as I haven’t attacked Roe other than to say it’s bad policy for the unelected to create law.

      Here’s the thesis I’m attacking: the GOP, particularly federal office holders, doesn’t introduce anti abortion legislation.

      My attack: Roe v Wade makes any serious legislative restriction of abortion impossible.

      Do you agree or disagree with this point?

      Follow up point: Since no serious legislative restriction can be passed as long as Roe is the law of the land, the makeup of the Supreme Court is of huge importance for someone who wants to change the law of the land.

      Do you agree or disagree with this point?

  10. Cameron,

    What would you consider a serious legislative restriction?

    Could you refer me to the statute created by the Roe v Wade court ruling?

    If you aren’t attacking Roe v Wade then why are you so insistent to try to overturn it?

    I want to really try to make sure I understand where you are coming from, so I don’t waste more of my time providing evidence that you are simply going to dismiss and move on to another topic.

  11. Cameron, you have not clearly stated anything.

    I have no interest in answering vague questions based on inaccurate statements and argue against unsubstantiated hypotheticals.

    There was no law created by Roe v Wade. Until you are able to admit that and understand the implications of that we don’t have enough common ground to have a serious discussion.

    1. Dean, this is how argumentation works. Someone makes a claim, as I did in the very first comment to this post, and someone else rebuts the claim. My claim was that no serious abortion legislation is possible as long as the Supreme Court upholds Roe v Wade. In all of your comments I haven’t really seen a rebuttal to this claim.

      Here’s an example of what I mean. Nine states have passed laws in recent years doing away with abortions 20 weeks after conception. Arizona’s version has wound up in court to determine whether it violates Roe v Wade. In other words, Roe v Wade is the law of the land when it comes to abortion, and while GOP legislators may try to push at the boundaries set by Roe, anything they do is ultimately at the mercy of what the Court allows them to do.

      I’ve restated the claim and used a real world example to illustrate the point. Now it’s up to you to rebut the claim and show me where I’m wrong.

  12. Cameron, thank you for finally sharing a real world example to illustrate your point, even if it is only a subtext to the examples I have already given and obviously agree with already.

    If you have amended your initial claim to remove any reference to an argument that who is in the White House is important to Roe v Wade, which you have left out of your restated claim, then of course I agree with you. It was the second half of your first comment that you continued to reiterate that I have been disputing this whole time.

    1. So we agree that saying the GOP hasn’t legislated against abortion is a faulty argument. Good.

      So, if because of Roe v Wade legislating against abortion is out of the question, what options are left to a strong pro life voter when it comes to outlawing abortion?

  13. Cameron, if you remember I’m not the one, of the two of us, that argued that the GOP has been ineffective at legislating abortion. I do stand by my position, that can be historically verified, that the GOP has stood in the way of abortion legislation that would stand the test of the Roe v Wade decision and actually have a measurable effect in decreasing the number of abortions being preformed.

    A “strong” pro life voter has the same options when it comes to outlawing abortion, that any other voter has in outlawing anything else. Vote for representatives that pass laws that the Supreme Court finds constitutional. The real question is, what do you do now that that option has failed time after time for over 40 years to get the result you want?

    You have two simple options. 1) Keep trying the same process of voting for politicians trying to read the hearts and minds of judicial nominations, and hope for different results. 2) Vote for representatives that will promote, both legislatively and executively, policies that will further limit and regulate abortions. Policies that have proven to have a measurable impact in decreasing abortions.

    I’m not going to tell anyone how to vote, that has not been my intention here at all. Everyone has to look at their own conscience and decide who will better promote their values and beliefs, both religiously and politically. As a strong pro-life voter, my endgame is to protect and promote human life and see dramatic decreases in the number of abortions being preformed and I will vote for the candidate that has the best chance of getting results.

    1. So if a voter wants to outlaw abortion, the only avenue to do so is to have a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v Wade. And there’s only one way for a voter to affect the makeup of the Supreme Court.

      And this goes both ways. My inbox is filled with emails from liberal groups saying I must vote for Obama because he will defend a “woman’s right to choose”. That he will nominate judges that will defend that “right”. And those groups are 100% correct. Whoever is president will nominate our next Supreme Court justices, and it will be those justices who will hear cases which either chip away or outright confront Roe v Wade.

      I applaud all efforts to reduce the need and number of abortions. I wholeheartedly endorse good policy which results in fewer abortions. And the right and the left keep fighting over what that policy is, including suing over laws like the Arizona one I mentioned above.

      But that’s not the same as outlawing abortion, which is the goal of many pro life voters. The only way to do so is to get a Supreme Court which will do it. And no amount of equivocating on your part can change that fact.

  14. It sounds like you need a better email filter. I am not going to start accepting spam email as evidence of anything.

    I can’t believe that the person that cannot point to a single positive outcome to prove his hypothesis is going to accuse me of being equivocal. I don’t think you understand the difference between a fact and a hypothetical. The only fact you have stated is that the President nominates Supreme Court Justices. Every other aspect of your argument is hypothetical. I see no point in arguing against hypotheticals.

  15. It’s not a hypothetical when I ask you how does a pro life voter use her vote to outlaw abortion. Your answers have been nothing but equivocations. So again, how does a voter change Roe v Wade?

  16. I am not going to answer a question based on a premise that I have not presented nor argued for.

    A question is neither hypothetical or fact, and obviously wasn’t what I was referring to. It’s your argument that is based entirely on hypotheticals. You begin with one fact, that a president nominates Supreme Court Justices, then proceed along a string of hypothetical steps to reach a hypothetical conclusion. Suggesting that any of those steps offers any degree of certainty is equivocal. Referring to a Judicial Ruling as a law is equivocal. Superficially characterizing Supreme Court Justices as activists is equivocal. My responses have only been in response to your equivocations. Suggesting that a vote for a pro-life president is the ONLY way to overturn a court ruling is just inaccurate. There have been more than enough pro-life appointed justices on the court for the past 40 years to overturn Roe v Wade if that is all it takes. In fact there are enough pro-life appointed justices on the court now to over-turn it and there is no guarantee that the next president will get the chance to appoint another one anyway. But I’m sure you have a hypothetical response to that as well.

  17. I want to make it clear, that I am not arguing for or against the moral, legal or constitutional grounds for abortion. I am also not suggesting what level of responsibility or ability a voter has to ban it. My responses have only been to show veritably, not equivocally, that a pro-life or pro-choice president has not had any influence on Roe v Wade. That is a claim you have made and one you need to defend.

  18. I am not so presumptuous to pretend that I have the answer to a specific voter’s goal to accomplish anything. That is not a claim I have ever made. I am only concerned with the goals of one voter. Every voter enters the ballot box and makes a decision based on varying degrees of uncertainty. The balance and weight placed on that uncertainty is a decision each individual voter has to make for themselves. I do, however, feel that it is irresponsible, when it comes to an issue as important to voters as abortion to present unsupported hypotheticals and inaccurate characterizations as facts and evidence.

  19. Just because you don’t get the answer you agree with doesn’t mean that I am equivocating on it. I have answered your question already, even before you started accusing me of being equivocal. A voter has the same option to outlaw abortion that any other voter has in outlawing anything else. The rules don’t change because you don’t agree with them. I have answered all your questions, I just don’t see the value in repeating myself. Yet you are still unwilling to admit that the only other option you have presented for an anti-abortion voter is based on an experiment that has been tried and failed 14 times with not a single positive result. You have not admitted that the majority of your justification for voting for a pro-life president is based on a procedural hypothetical. You have offered misleading arguments that if the deck is stacked you have a better chance of getting the result you want, when the deck has been stacked 2 to 1 for 40 years. You have further made an inaccurate statement that the only option anyone has to ban abortion is to vote for a pro-life president, when there is just as much a chance to overturn Roe v Wade with the court we have now as there would be with a president that may nominate a replacement for one of them but is just as likely to not get a chance to replace any of them. Roe v Wade will be overturned when the Supreme Court hears arguments that offer a compelling enough justification to interpret the constitution differently than 21 judges have interpreted for 40 years.

    1. “Wade will be overturned when the Supreme Court hears arguments that offer a compelling enough justification to interpret the constitution differently than 21 judges have interpreted for 40 years.”

      Wade will be overturned when 1) the Supreme Court is comprised of a majority of judges who understand the Constitution well enough to interpret its intent correctly and 2) a case is brought that provides the opportunity to overturn it

      OR

      Congress enacts new legislation, such as an Amendment to the Constitution, which effectively overturns it.

  20. Matthew,

    I’m doing my OB-GYN rotation for school and came across some interesting data while studying contraceptives that are relevant to your post here. Studies have shown a growing disparity in the number of unintended pregnancies among wealthy couples compared to the number of unintended pregnancies among poor couples (and 40% of unintended pregnancies will be terminated by abortion). This definitely supports your assertion regarding the correlation of abortion rates to access to healthcare providers and contraception. It seems wealthier couples (who presumably have health insurance) have better access to providers and contraception to prevent pregnancies. This also helps explain why abortion rates might correlate to economic conditions as well. It’s not just that a slower economy might mean less disposable income for raising a child; we can also consider that our healthcare system is dependent on employer-provided health insurance. Widespread job losses mean lost insurance coverage and therefore less access to contraception.

  21. Though it is true that president Obama has not.tried to legislate any expansion of abortion in his ‘campaigned’ agenda thus far in his two terms. Comparing this to republican empty rhetoric I believe is slightly unfair.
    For example;
    I,too, always make a list before I go to the super market to purchase the things I need the most that week, knowing I won’ be able to afford everything..Nevertheless, I still carry my list.
    Long story short.? I’d ratber work on Obama’s progressie list of “things to do” than the current republican agenda.

Leave a Reply