The Wall Roe Built
Abortion & Politics

by Fr. Patrick J. Winslow

Enough with the entrenched “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” rhetoric. Let’s talk politics. When it comes to the abortion debate, the American people and politicians live in two different worlds. For the average American, the debate is as simple as it is contentious. For the politician, it is as strange as it is off point.

For the American people, the abortion debate is clearly defined. Those who wish to outlaw abortion speak of conception as the first moment of human development and thus demand protection under the law for the preborn. Others speak of a woman’s right to decide whether that process continues within her. Such are the two views taken at the dinner table, water cooler, and ladies guild. When it comes to abortion, the average American “gets it.” They are, quite simply, on point.

Then there are those who live in the political sphere, within the walls of Roe v. Wade. Separated from the rest of us, this alternate society is entrenched in our nation’s capitol. Unlike the American people, they are, to say the least, off point. Hearing them speak on the issue of abortion, the average person is lost as the conversation swirls around topics such as judicial precedent and privacy rights. They speak a strange language and navigate bizarre theoretical terrain. The act of an abortion is more or less a footnote indistinguishable from any other act one might want a right to commit.

Whether they know it or not, politicians appear to the rest of us as living in another world, aloof and isolated from the average American. Ask anyone outside the political sphere trying to follow the debate. They turn on their favorite news program, listen in, and within minutes ask themselves, “What are they talking about? I thought this was supposed to be about abortion!”

Adding insult to injury, the poor viewer, not being from this strange world of politics, is left to accept the translations of reporters and pundits. (Apparently, they are fluently bilingual.)

How Did We Get Here?

In short, Roe v. Wade. This court decision has become America’s political version of the Berlin Wall, separating regular Americans on one side and politicians and Roe supporters on the other. Roe v. Wade has created a whole new world sheltered from the central question, new information, and popular opinion. It is the only place on earth where abortion has nothing to do with abortion, where privacy has something to do with when a child becomes a citizen.

Why? Because the wall Roe built keeps the real questions out, assuring politicians never have to deal with the serious issues of life, human development, and protection under law for the preborn. It is the out-of-touch place where debate reels about such concerns as stare decisis (the principle of judicial precedent) and privacy rights. Ironically, those we ask to represent us on the real issues inevitably abandon us and enter this strange land. Once elected, they are shown the gate and pass through the wall, never to return. Quickly they adapt, learn the language, and explore the landscape. Meanwhile, the rest of us live on the outside where abortion still has something to do with abortion.

On behalf of the American people, I have a request. Could someone from the strange land of politics, from behind the wall, please come out and explain to the rest of us what privacy rights have to do with determining at what point our newest and youngest citizens can be protected by law?

Such is the great legacy of Roe v. Wade. Within the center of a free society, a court ruling, circumventing a true political process, has constructed a walled fortress made of the strong substance of precedent, effectively creating a pocket of tyranny. Here, an elite group of nine Supreme Court Justices rule by edict propped up by an increasingly strange and only tangential political process. Appointed by the elected, they build and sustain the wall, keeping the American people and the central issue out of the debate.

Imagine if tomorrow the American people, based on further medical evidence, unanimously discerned the need to afford legal rights to the unborn child, protection even from his/her mother. Nothing would change. Why? Because nothing could change. The wall of Roe, with its preeminent concern for privacy and precedent, is constructed out of material impervious to new and relevant information, keeping the real issues out and securing the majority opinion of this ruling class. To be sure, when it comes to abortion, Roe has created an aristocratic, not a democratic, process.

“Tear Down this Wall!”

As frustrating and dire as this all seems, there is hope. Just as the will of the people toppled the Berlin Wall and tore down the Iron Curtain, so too can this barrier be prevailed upon. Today, more than ever, we need a courageous politician to come to the fore, take the podium, look the court in the eye, and say “tear down this wall!” One can hear the applause of people, diverse in opinion but united by a yearning for a true democratic process.

What might this look like in the upcoming presidential election? Certainly it would be less dramatic than President Reagan’s cry to Gorbachev. But consider the possibility of an outsider to national politics whose previous political position on abortion might otherwise be problematic reframing the debate:

Debate Moderator: Sir, you have been called a natural leader. If you were to become the United States president, would your administration operate from a pro-life or pro-choice platform?

Presidential Candidate: With all due respect, what does it matter? Moreover, what does it matter if 95 percent of the American people are pro-life or pro-choice? This question is a political red herring. The Supreme Court has made it so by taking it away from the American people and our political process. In other words, Roe v. Wade said to the American people, “Your view of abortion does not matter. Five out of nine of us say it’s OK.”

The real question is, What kind of Supreme Court justice might I nominate to the bench? One who takes the issue away from the American people and presumes to vote on their behalf? Or one who sees that this is one of the most important modern ethical questions we as a people face? That is, at what point of human development will our nation protect life under the law? We must ask and answer this question as a people, as a democratic nation.

We are not an aristocracy where a select few rule the majority, where a group of nine distinguished citizens known as Supreme Court justices decide these important societal questions for the rest of us. Sure, they judge questions directly bearing upon Constitutional rights, those of the state and those of the citizen. But the answer to this question is not to be found there. This issue needs to be returned to the American people. And only then will I answer the question as to whether I am pro-life or pro-choice. Because only then will it actually matter what the rest of us think.

Rev. Patrick J. Winslow is the pastor of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Tryon, North Carolina, and lectures for Catholic Scripture Study International.

Back to Web Exclusives