Anti-Roe is not Pro-Life

With Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in the United States, a lot of right wing politicians have been able to get a lot of mileage out of the pro-life label by arguing for the overturn of that Supreme Court ruling.

What irks me is that there is no logical connection between being against Roe, and for the human rights of the unborn child.

John McCain, Ron Paul, and other GOP candidates have run on anti-Roe platforms, arguing that abortion law ought to be left to the states. At the same time they sometimes declare that ‘life begins at conception’. Just what does it mean to be ‘pro-life’ anyway?

To me, it has always meant to hold the position that the unborn human being is entiteld to the same right to life as all other human beings, that it deserves the same protection under the law.

What it does not mean is to hold the position that the state government, as opposed to the federal government, should be allowed to do what the Blackmum court did and place the definition of life in an untouchable zone of relativism and subjectivity.

I often hear as a rebuttal that sending abortion back to the states enables pro-life forces to have a greater effect, that not long after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the political victories will fall from the sky like mana from heaven.

Is there any rational basis for this belief? Ballot propositions that would have restricted abortion in three states were rejected by solid majorities, including California, where just as many voted against gay marriage.

Moreover, victory in some states simply means that those seeking abortions will only have to cross state lines to obtain one. For many Americans that will mean that abortion will remain practically accessible. Not many women have multiple abortions to the point where the prospect of driving to another state is going to become a  deterrent, for them, or their panicking boyfriends/husbands/parents.

Practical arguments aside, however, the notion that the definition of human life is subject either to judicial interpretation or majority votes is repugnant to Catholic morality. States have no more of a right to strip the unborn of their human rights than the federal government does. It will never be sufficient to simply be opposed to Roe.