Putting the issue back to the people, into the political process, is what a realistic “Right to Life” amendment would do. In my post above, though, I was thinking more in terms that you would likely not support a highly restrictive amendment, i.e. a ban on abortion. I think it’s extremely unlikely that such a ban could be imposed by either the Supreme Court or Congress, given the fact that such a majority would oppose it (part of Wittes’ argument).

The amendment movement was apparently most active in the 1970’s & 1980’s. Wikipedia lists 7 “major” amendments, of which 4 simply put the decision back into the legislative arena. The only amendment to reach the floor of Congress, according to Wikipedia, was the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which simply stated, “A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution,” taking us back to the day before Roe.

Thank you so much for engaging this issue with me and providing this excellent analysis and feedback for me (and others who are reading)! You’ve provided a wonderful example here of online discussion, which is completely respectful of me (as the person whose ideas you are critiquing/pushing back on) and yet clearly and concisely, even compellingly, shows another way to think about an important issue, such as abortion.

I need to ruminate on all that you’ve written here a bit more, but based on my first reading I already feel quite persuaded by your argument.

The one small piece of pushback (which isn’t really pushback, merely clarification) is on the point of “legislating from the bench”: My reason for pointing that out in my original blog post was to expose the irony on the part of many anti-abortion activists who deride the “activism” of the Court that led to a decision such as Roe, but who, in the next breathe, advocate for their own form of activism in appointing conservative judges who will overturn Roe. One form of “legislating from the bench” is clearly seen as “right” and the other clearly seen as “wrong,” but it seems pretty hypocritical to me (and others).

But perhaps I’m straining at gnats with that point. The larger problems with Roe, which you’ve ably articulated here, and the viable alternatives that exist are helpful to understand more fully. I still question (if Roe were to be overturned) how workable it would really be to have different abortion laws state-by-state. And what exactly would a national “Right to Life” constitutional amendment entail? Would it represent “the will of people” by allowing abortion in some cases? Or not? I guess I haven’t seen much advocacy for such an amendment, so I don’t know what to think of it at this point.

Thanks again for sharing your wisdom on this issue and helping me move forward in my own thought process on this. I’m deeply grateful to you for this.

Shalom,
Steve K.