Most of the buzz about Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court (aside from the fact that Mitch McConnell refused to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination but wants to rush to confirm Barrett) is that she could vote with the other conservative justices on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. But that’s not what concerns me most about the prospect of a 6–3 conservative majority on the court.
Like most Americans, I support a woman’s right to choose, with some restrictions on late-term abortions, but I don’t see it as a make-or-break issue. For one thing — and many of my liberal friends would be appalled to hear me say this — I consider the opposing views on abortion to be equally valid. The view that the life of an unborn fetus should be protected and the view that a woman should be able to control her own body are both entirely legitimate. As a moral stance, neither is right or wrong, and each person has the right to decide which they believe should take priority over the other.
Aside from that, many experts, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, have asserted that Roe v. Wade actually set back the abortion rights movement in this country. Prior to Roe, the right to choose was gradually gaining ground in various state legislatures. Horrifying stories of teenage girls accidently killing themselves while trying induce an abortion were widely circulated. A case can be made that, in the absence of the Roe decision, abortion rights would have continued to gain acceptance, and abortion today would have become not only legal but relatively uncontroversial. Roe, however, put a halt to the evolution of our society’s views on abortion, energized its opponents, and entrenched it for decades as one of America’s most divisive political issues.
Yes, if Roe were overturned some states would make it impossible for pregnant women to obtain an abortion without traveling out of state. But progressive activist groups would also raise millions of dollars to provide funds to such women so they could make that trip, and the evolution of the country’s views on abortion might conceivable resume where it left off in 1973.
So no, I’m not going to get worked up about the prospect of a Supreme Court with Amy Coney Barrett on the bench overturning Roe v. Wade. But I am worried about her nomination for another reason.
I’m concerned that a more conservative court could give corporations even more clout and workers less by blocking potential legislation that would mitigate the impact of unfettered capitalism and staggering inequality in this country. The prospect of halting the rise of the American oligarchy and a rebirth of FDR-style progressivism is considerably dimmed with Barrett on the Supreme Court.
I agree. I believe that culture war issues, such as abortion, are a red herring for the American oligarchy you describe. What they REALLY want are federal courts that will deconstruct all meaningful government regulation, especially in the areas of environmental protection, worker safety, education, labor laws, and the like. The Trump Administration has been actively destroying the federal government by appointing officials who actively oppose the missions of their agencies or by simply not filling such positions so that nothing can be accomplished. That’s what I worry about when I see Republicans aggressively filling the federal courts with young right-wing ideologues.