The Supreme Court: Stage for a Culture War’s Climactic Fate
(Gallup)
On October 2nd, thousands of women marched in the streets of Washington D.C. and surrounded the Supreme Court, demanding that the justices uphold their right to an abortion. They shouted, “My body, my choice,” holding up signs of protest as they marched with fervor.
This is the reaction to a recent surge in anti-abortion legislation, most notably enacted in Texas and Mississippi. The latter enforced a ban on abortions after only 15 weeks, or the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy. A panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the law, recognizing that it directly contradicted the third trimester safeguard for abortion established in Roe v. Wade. But the law eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and arguments are now scheduled for early December.
In recent times, the Supreme Court has become the stage for a raging culture war, Mississippi’s abortion case being the climax to a contentious battle of gun rights, Affirmative Action, and political interests.
The implications of the Court’s final ruling are clear — if Mississippi’s law is affirmed, Roe v. Wade could be completely undone.
How did we get to this point, to a crossroads of a decision that could unleash public uproar and permanently damage the fabric of our democracy?
Abortion has always been a topic of controversy and political partisanship. But compromise was never out of the question. As sociologist James Davinson Hunter states, “Democracy … is an agreement that we will … talk through [our] differences.” In the aftermath of the Trump presidency, however, we have seen an intense, unceasing political war between the two sides — a type of polarization that leaves no room for compromise. It is in this context that conservative governments are taking the offensive, moving to enforce sweeping, unrelenting restrictions on abortion.
They have also been emboldened by Trump’s conservative Supreme Court nominees, which have given them a real chance at successfully overturning Roe v. Wade.
More than politics though, Americans war over cultures and values. Simply put, liberals and conservatives have different values when it comes to family, sexuality, and purpose; in the realm of politics, these ethics clash, especially with regard to abortion. Consequently, the two sides frame the issue differently.
Liberals frame abortion as an issue of female autonomy: it is an essential reproductive right, especially for disenfranchised groups of women who lack adequate access to reproductive healthcare. This takes precedence over the personhood — or lack thereof — of the fetus. Conservatives frame it as a moral issue; the fetus is unequivocally human life, and therefore has intrinsic value — as all humans are made in the image of God. For some conservatives, religion is inextricably tied to abortion; the Judeochristian worldview emphasizes God’s active role in forming and sustaining life. All human life is sacred, and as a result, they advocate for what they believe to be a righteous cause.
James Bopp Jr., the General Counsel of National Right to Life, states that this hearing could be “like Brown v. Board of Education.” Conservatives feel the same moral fervor that abolitionists felt when fighting against slavery and segregation. Moral convictions are the deepest, most firmly held beliefs, so this wave of anti-abortion legislation comes as no surprise when we understand conservative voters’ perspectives.
But despite the voters’ sincerity, the motives of the party’s leaders are suspect. It is oddly paradoxical that the very autonomy and freedom that characterizes conservatism, is the same value they are trying to restrict with abortion. Moreover, it is estimated that overturning Roe v. Wade would only decrease abortion by 12% — far less than states like Delaware, which, in 2017, decreased abortion by 37% by increasing healthcare access. Surely lawmakers are aware of these facts.
The Republican party was not always pro-life. In their book Before Roe v. Wade, Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel describe how prior to 1988, Republicans and Democrats voted against abortion at roughly the same rates. The Right’s shift to outrightly opposing abortion, according to Greenhouse and Siegel, came later, and was “part of a larger effort to paint the Republican Party as pro-family in a way that would help mobilize socially conservative voters.”
Pro-life activism continues to galvanize voters on the basis of moral outrage and duty. But perhaps this rallying cry is merely a facade, carefully fabricated by conservative lawmakers and interest groups. It is unclear how much of the pro-life ideology is grounded in values or political gain. Regardless, this front of the culture war is now at the Supreme Court once again, and the consequences are immense.
The Court has a complicated history in how they rule. In one aspect, political interests have, throughout history, used the Court to advance their own agendas. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse points out that during Chief Justice Robert’s tenure, “the Court has issued more than 80 partisan decisions … involving big interests important to Republican Party major donors.” In fact, the “right-wing donor network spent upwards of $250 million in dark money on its judicial influence …” Liberal groups have also participated in these anonymous donations, outspending conservatives in the last two election cycles.
Lobbying clearly plays an influential role in which presidential candidate gets elected, which judges are nominated, and how the Court will rule. And now, with a 6-3 conservative supermajority, the reversal of Roe v. Wade is not an unlikely conclusion. The Supreme Court truly seems to be the political tool that the justices insist it is not.
At the same time, the Court might just be our last truthful and nonpartisan institution, especially concerning abortion. Republican nominees dominated the Supreme Court for nearly five decades, yet never once sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1992, a supermajority of eight conservative judges did not hear a case that could’ve overturned Roe. David French, a former attorney, writer, and senior editor of The Dispatch, states “for almost three decades, the Supreme Court lesson has been clear — put not your trust in judges to rescue America from … abortion.”
The principle of stare decisis, or abiding by precedent, remains strong. Trump’s last judicial nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, for example, is portrayed by her critics as a traditionalist anti-abortion antagonist. However, her prior rulings on abortions don’t characterize her in such a way. Her former colleague, professor Carter Snead, described Barrett as “someone who understands the complexity of the question … the stakes … and is going to be very thoughtful about how she proceeds.”
The Mississippi case is far more complex than it seems at first glance. It is unclear how the Supreme Court will rule — whether they will succumb to political lobbying or rule justly based on coherent reasoning. Whichever way they side, the culture war will only grow in size and severity. Considering that it has already damaged our democracy, we all have a role to play.
We must be willing to compromise, engage in dialogue, and understand the reasoning behind the other side. Conservatives who are empassioned by moral fervor against abortion should reconsider the motives of their party leaders, and strive to reduce abortion by addressing healthcare inacessibility, poverty, and reproductive justice.
And with time, as we uphold democracy and strive for compassion, we can trust that this bitter culture war will no longer maintain dominance and fuel enmity.