EDITORIAL – Change of heart won’t change Roe v. Wade

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade. Thirty-two years later,… In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade. Thirty-two years later, the woman known as “Jane Roe” has changed her mind and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas’ abortion ban led to the historic verdict, believes that the case should be reheard in light of evidence that the abortion procedure can harm women.

Any time a person gets onto an operating table, she can potentially be harmed just as much as she can be helped. As true as that may be, the Court made a decision based on a question of constitutionality, not health.

The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy — recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut — protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave women a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.

The politically charged issue comes before the court as both sides prepare for what could possibly be a bitter nomination fight over Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s replacement, provided that the judge retires this term. Rehnquist and two other justices have said that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Two lower courts threw out McCorvey’s request to have the ruling reconsidered last year.

McCorvey is only doing what she thinks is right. She put herself in the hot seat in 1973 and she’s willing to put herself in an even hotter seat now. But is it the most effective way to get to her real goal — the end of abortions? She is now 100 percent anti-abortion, and converted to Catholicism in 1998. Regardless of the changes she made in her personal, spiritual and professional life, she will always be associated with the abortion debate, although she deeply regrets that role. That is the sacrifice that leaders make, whether they sign up for it or not. They pick a side, take a stance and live with the consequences.

Yes, the testimonies of women and families who are physically and psychologically ill affected after an abortion are relevant, but the Supreme Court should not be swayed to rule on constitutionality based on emotions. If that were the case, then an issue could very well be dropped once it becomes unpopular.

Roe v. Wade changed the lives of many people whether or not the ruling was widely accepted. To go back and find it unconstitutional would cause more harm than it would healing. What women and families considering an abortion need to hear are McCorvey’s story and the stories of those who have lived through the experience. What they don’t need is one more infringement on their constitutional rights.