People have differing views of abortion but almost nobody approves of the holding in Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. Between them, those two cases and their progeny establish that abortion is a matter of no public concern under any circumstances. Whenever a woman and her abortionist agree that an abortion is indicated, nobody can constitutionally intervene.
The rules we have are extreme. If the Supreme Court discarded them and restored to the states their power to regulate abortion very few people would notice or care. Abortion would continue to be widely available in most states. This is all that most people who don’t want to see Roe overruled care about.
The legislatures would hammer out compromise regulatory schemes broadly satisfactory to the citizens of each state. Every state, even New York and California would adopt schemes flatly inconsistent with Roe. The left and its Democrat allies would be trapped trying to defend unlimited abortion on demand because that is what they have grown used to. Anything less would be a victory for the forces of life. The left would lose fifty times. It would be a long-running disaster for Democrats.
This process would have stresses for Republicans too. Compromise in this area is difficult. But every conceivable result in a post-Roe world will be a huge improvement for social conservatives. If abortion once again became a matter of political debate, Republicans would be able to satisfy their ideological base without alienating the mushy middle far better than Democrats.
The above is an except from Peter Mulhern. While the entire article is a rather interesting analysis, it has always stuck me as a bit odd that something as personal and seriously contemplated as abortion should end up being such a political football on both sides.
I’ve never believed for one second that either side has even one ounce of genuine concern for either the "unborn" or for the potential mother. It’s all just about a political agenda; who wins and who loses.