Either it's Laura Vanderkam, who says overturning Roe v. Wade will have a minimal effect on abortion, or it's Ted Rall, the title of whose piece says it all: "SAY SAYONARA TO ABORTION."
Vanderkam seems to me to be closer to the truth, as most states either have enacted or would enact fairly liberal abortion laws. The point she misses however, is that the many of the very reasonable limitations passed by states in the past 10 years will then be enforceable. This means the people of any given state will be free to decide that maybe 13 year olds should not be able to get abortions without their parents permission. Who can really be sad about this?
Not only is Rall wrong in his prediction, but he's also wrong in his facts. Roe v Wade is not in danger. If Roberts is confirmed and if he turns out to truly be pro-life and if Rehnquist retires soon and ifanother pro-life justice is nominated and confirmed, then there will still only be four pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. Sure, maybe some of the restrictions on abortion that have been stricken down such as partial birth abortion and parental notification laws might get passed, but the vast majority of abortions - elective early term abortions on grown women - would still be legal.
Thanks for the reasoned discourse, Ted.
By the way, here's an interesting excerpt from Rall's piece"
So Ted's whole rant is based on his mistaken assertion that a court decision that he admits is "legally dubious" and "flawed" will be overturned. Still, it is nice to hear somebody on the left admit that Roe v. Wade is terrible law.
