On Abortion (God Help Me)

I vowed that I would be focusing more on Speedway-specific matters on this blog, and I intend to return to those matters shortly. However, I thought it would be enlightening to give a short post on my views regarding abortion.

As an initial disclaimer, I've never had an abortion. I'm a male. I couldn't have one even if I wanted one. 

Second disclaimer, I am pro-choice.

Third disclaimer, I don't think I've ever met someone who has had an abortion; at least I don't recall ever discussing it.

Fourth disclaimer, I am quite sure I've never met someone who wants to have an abortion.

Now, on to my views:

I think Roe v. Wade got it right. For those who have never read Roe, here is the basic outline. In the first trimester, the government has no interest in regulating birth control; such regulation is a function of a woman's relationship with her doctor. In the second trimester, the government has a compelling interest in the health of the woman. In the third trimester, the government has a compelling interest in the health of the unborn child. Here is a good summary:

For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, based upon the State’s interest in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

This is consistent with common law. In the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, abortion of an early pregnancy was either legal or a misdemeanor prior to "quickening." Given that the Constitution was written as a continuation of English common law and not as an abrogation of it, I think that Roe was properly decided and provides a significantly better standard by which to adjudicated constitutionality than the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey standard prohibiting the state from imposing an "undue burden" on women who seek this procedure. As but a single criticism of Casey, I ask what counts as an "undue burden," and how can a state legislator from, say, Speedway, IN, determine whether a burden to access to abortion is "undue?"

Anyway, this is a legal argument for me and not a theological one. I fully recognize that for many pro-life adherents, I completely miss the point. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was properly decided and provided a good analytical framework.

Finally, and I shouldn't really have to write this but I will anyway: "constitutional" is not synonymous with "good policy," nor is "unconstitutional" synonymous with "policy I don't like." The two are separate issues, and the merits of abortion, birth control, etc., are not addressed in this post; rather, the constitutionality of abortion is addressed.