- Title: How abortion rights became the axis of U.S. politics
- Date: 18th June 2022
- Summary: WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES (JUNE 9, 2022) (REUTERS) VARIOUS OF DOCUMENT OUTLINING ROE V. WADE DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT CARROLLTON, GEORGIA, UNITED STATES (JUNE 7, 2022) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) DANIEL WILLIAMS, HISTORY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF WEST GEORGIA, SAYING: "At the time that this decision was issued, the Supreme Court justices did not anticipate a particularly momentous or consequential decision. The fact that they issued the decision in January rather than saving it for June - which is usually when the Supreme Court tries to issue its blockbuster decisions - says something. And actually on the day that it was issued, it was the second headline in the 'New York Times,' not the first."
- Embargoed: 2nd July 2022 17:32
- Keywords: Norma McCorvey Planned Parenthood Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court anti-abortion rights history of abortion pro-abortion rights
- Location: VARIOUS
- City: VARIOUS
- Country: USA
- Topics: Crime/Law/Justice,Judicial Process/Court Cases/Court Decisions,United States,Editors' Choice
- Reuters ID: LVA006308206062022RP1
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9
- Story Text: Before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, women carrying unwanted pregnancies often took measures into their own hands.
"Women tried to fall down stairs or punch their stomachs," said Karissa Haugeberg, assistant professor of history at Tulane University.
Some ended up in the hands of nefarious doctors trying to make money, and many died, she added. "It was very unpredictable."
The Roe v. Wade ruling answered the call of many women's rights activists.
It also kicked off a nearly fifty year fight over abortion rights, with fiery protests playing out year after year in the nation's capital. Some protested with violence - murdering abortion providers and bombing or setting fire to abortion clinics.
But the Supreme Court justices in 1973 did not anticipate that the ruling would become such a lightning rod in U.S. politics, according to Daniel Williams, a history professor at the University of West Georgia.
"The fact that they issued the decision in January rather than saving it for June - which is usually when the Supreme Court tries to issue its blockbuster decisions - says something," he said.
That's because Republicans and Democrats had not yet taken sides on the issue.
"During the 1960's, early 1970's, before Roe v. Wade, there was no partisan difference on abortion," said Williams.
In fact, ant-abortion activists were more likely to be Democrats, as many Roman Catholics belonged to that party, he added.
But in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, Republicans saw an opportunity to harness passions over the abortion issue to expand their voter base - especially among Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians, who were not politically active - according to Jennifer Holland, an assistant professor of U.S. history at the University of Oklahoma.
"I think pretty quickly they realize that these are very useful voters," she said. "You could say the right things in an election cycle, and you could get this very fervent - not majority - but an important and fervent minority to come out and vote for you."
The Republican Party officially added anti-abortion rights to its platform in 1976. At the same time, the Democratic Party took up the pro-abortion rights mantle.
However, even as Republican politicians tried to prove their so-called "pro-life" bonafides, many in the movement were left disappointed by the results, said Holland.
By the late 90's, socially-conservative leaders, such as Reverend Jerry Falwell, began "putting their foot down" Holland said, and insisted on action.
And Republicans weren't the only ones digging in their heels.
"It becomes a litmus test," said Haugeberg. "In order to survive a primary challenge, in order to get a nomination, in order for the party to back you, for both parties, one has to - by the mid-1990's - have a pretty firm commitment to either being anti-abortion or pro-choice."
Whereas Republican President Ronald Reagan had disappointed religious conservatives with his pick of Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court in 1981, he chose a vocal anti-abortion nominee in 1987.
Robert Bork was not confirmed, but it marked a turning point for the court, according to Williams.
"It was clear to everyone that Supreme Court nominations would no longer be a cake walk - that abortion would be a subject of examination, and that the future of Roe v. Wade and it's legacy was on the line with every Supreme Court appointment," he said.
In 1992, the Supreme Court upheld abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but allowed for such state regulations as waiting periods.
Over the past few decades, Republican states have passed legislation to chip away at abortion access, as well as worked to promote conservative judges.
Norma McCorvey, the woman known as “Jane Roe†in the Roe v. Wade case, also claimed to have switched her position on abortion and was now against it. However, prior to her death in 2017, McCorvey revealed that she had lied and had been paid to do so.
In 2020, Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to attend the "March for Life" rally in Washington. He also helped shape the current Supreme Court by nominating three conservative judges: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Williams said overturning Roe v. Wade would be a huge achievement for the anti-abortion rights movement, but that its followers may ultimately be disappointed.
"I think what they're going to be amazed at...is how little the reversal of Roe is actually going to affect abortion rates in this country or even abortion access," he said, adding that many red states have already severely rolled back abortion services.
And, the historians agree, a reversal of Roe would not spell the end of the fight for anti-abortion activists.
"This is not the end game to just try to get people to go further for their abortions," said Holland. "The end game, of course, is to ban it across the country."
(Production: Vanessa Johnston) - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2022. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None