|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Abortion access in a post-Roe world
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP Aug 27, 2012 07:10pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Analysis |
| Author | Sarah Kliff |
| Media | Newspaper - Washington Post |
| News Date | Monday, August 27, 2012 05:15:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The Republican platform spends a lot of time on abortion, calling for extending personhood rights to “unborn children” and arguing that terminating a pregnancy threatens a woman’s health and well-being.
There is one key issue that the platform is silent on: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. While Gov. Mitt Romney calls for the decision to be overturn, the Republican party does not endorse that stance.
Overturning Roe, however, would by no means eliminate abortion. Even in a situation where 31 states banned legal abortion, the national abortion rate would only fall 14.9 percent.
That helps explains why a number of antiabortion advocates don’t actually favor overturning Roe: It would still allow for states to legalize abortion and, as this paper suggests, not get anywhere close to eliminating the procedure. Tellingly, the Republican platform does not call for the repeal of Roe.
James Bopp, who drafted the Republican platform on abortion, is one prominent figure who does not like the idea of returning abortion rights to the states for this exact reason. “That puts us back to California and New York having very high abortion rates,” he told me last week. “That’s something I would totally oppose.” |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
