For many – a candidate’s position on abortion acts as a litmus test. Whether they are pro-life, pro-choice or something in between, this issue strongly binds many citizens at the ballot box. In regards to the upcoming presidential election, therefore, most may find interesting that a President’s position on this controversial question has not historically meant much, if anything. Surely the pro-life movement, for instance, has not gained much ground despite the fact that a pro-life President resided in the White House for the last 8 years, let alone the fact that pro-life Presidents held this highest of offices for roughly 22 out of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade (1973). Hence, it seems odd that people have let themselves to be but pawns of demagogic ideologues on both sides of the issue that pretend it matters what the President’s personally feels regarding this subject.
Either way, why is this? Why can the leader of the free world do virtually nothing regarding abortion? To begin with, traditionally, the issue of abortion has never been a federal matter. These types of “morality” laws – like murder and stealing as well – have always been under the authority of the states and their elected officials, i.e. Governors, Mayors and State Legislatures. Thus, for the same reason that a state legislature’s position on a foreign war is of little consequence, the President’s position on abortion is of equally little concern.
Secondly, as hinted to above, the President’s abortion leanings do not amount to much because the courts have taken away the democracy’s ability to speak on this polarizing topic. In becoming a modern day version of Plato’s Philosopher Kings – our very own oligarchy – the courts decided long ago that they are smarter and wiser than the democratic public and their elected representatives. As such, they handed down the decision of Roe v. Wade and its many progeny, and in the process, usurped the democratic channels that usually decide these controversial issues. Thus, since the President easily falls under the “democratic channels” mentioned above, he too is now left on the sidelines of history, waiting for our wise rulers at the Supreme Court to hand down its next oligarchy-like edict.
Nevertheless, one would be remiss if they did not mention one way the President could, theoretically, enter the debate on abortion. According to the Constitution, the President is charged with the duty of appointing Federal judges. Therefore, if abortion law now turns solely on what these nine unelected judges feel about it, then appointing like-minded judges will affect our nation’s stance on abortion. Right? Wrong.
Even if, for example, the pro-life movement gets its dream court – a court that strikes down Roe v. Wade as having no actual basis in the Constitution – this will not ban abortion. Rather, this will once again, as the founders intended, render abortion a state-issue. At the very least, we would decide this issue by some form of democratic self-governance, even if that form is a constitutional amendment. In other words, overturning of Roe v. Wade will merely allow for the people of this country to decide for themselves how they feel about abortion.
As a result, a quick look at recent polling data would lead one to the undeniable conclusion that abortion will remain utterly unchanged in almost every state and in almost every way. True, many of the court’s more recent usurpations of the democratic voice will then become law, i.e. the parental consent requirement when young teens seek an abortion or the law that makes sure the fetus is not in any unnecessary pain. But, for the most part, Americans agree that while we should not have abortions anytime, anywhere or anyhow, we should allow a consenting adult woman to, at times, choose whether she would like to bring a life into this world
Consequently, even though people complain that Presidents do too little – in this case, they have an excuse. Therefore, when we decide which candidate to vote for come November, we should base that choice on the candidate’s positions which are of consequence. Definitely we should not let the demagogic pundits confuse us to pay attention to the candidate’s personal feelings about topics that he has no control over anyways – abortion, regrettably, being one of far too many.