A little court decision in 1973 called Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in the United States. The landmark case overturned all state-specific laws outlawing or restricting abortion and has inspired controversy ever since.
The latest attempt to challenge this pro-choice decision is in South Dakota where the state senate passed and Republican Gov. Mike Rounds signed a law that makes almost all abortion—save in the case of a woman's life being at risk—illegal. This law, although clearly in violation of federal law, was passed in hopes of traveling all the way to the Washington.
Concern now rests in the Supreme Court's ability to prove their conservative stance on a myriad of undecided and heated issues. Regardless of political orientation, the potential power of the court is unnerving.
A few years ago, the fairly balanced bench would have quickly ruled South Dakota's attempt at overturning Roe outlandish and null and void; in fact, the conservative state probably would not have even tried.
With today's political temperament, however, conservatives are seeing opportunities and jumping at them. The approval of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito has made the likelihood of an anti-abortion country a scary possibility. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a case on partial birth abortion, which was passed by Congress in 2003 and then struck down by three federal appeals courts.
Now South Dakota's stab at a conservative nation has taken center stage and with such attention, the court will be hard pressed to ignore it.
If given the opportunity to overturn one of the most ground breaking and influential cases in our nations history, what can we expect next?
Complete chaos will engulf the entire country and ensure a divided nation is the least of our problems. On the surface, we can expect illegal and unsafe abortion practices to pop up all throughout the country, much as they did in the pre-Roe era.
More disturbingly, though, we can expect conservative initiatives to take center stage: stem cell research, gay marriage—if the Supreme Court can find the ammunition to rule abortion does not infringe upon a woman's right to privacy, they can find a way to do the same for almost anything else.
But, on a slightly less melodramatic note, this political armageddon is not inevitable. It is unknown exactly what the Supreme Court will do, but the idea that they would disrespect the previous bench to the extent of overturning Roe is hard to believe.
Chief Justice Roberts himself has expressed his support of stare decisis (allowing decided issues to stand) and, during his confirmation hearings, distanced himself from his previous anti-abortion stance during his days as a Reagan administration lawyer. Yet while choosing his words carefully, he also refused to comment specifically on Roe v. Wade. Soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts said that under some circumstances it is understandable to change precedent.
Will the court allow political ideology or religious obsessions to overshadow their legal judgment? All we can do is hope not and wait.
Alison Fox is a freshman intending on majoring in journalism and political science. Send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
