The right of a woman to choose to have an abortion is considered, by some, to be one which is inalienable. To take away such a right, they argue, would be a gross violation of basic human (what some would call “God-given”), as well as constitu-tionally guaranteed rights. Others believe that there is no such right, and that when a woman chooses to abort a fetus, she is in essence perpetrating an act of murder against an innocent child, an act which is also a violation of basic human (these guys are a little more likely to use the g-word), and constitutional rights. But the issue at hand here is not simply a question of whether or not abortion is moral or legal, but how large a roll should the national federal government play in making decisions which are largely cultural or moralistic in nature. Do we really want to see our national government mak-ing such decisions for us, or would we rather place such legislation into the hands of more local governing bod-ies, such as state and county governments, over whom we very often may have a more direct influence? Let’s say that, for the sake of argument, Roe v. Wade was overturned. Many on the “right to choose” side of the battle lines immediately turn to the doomsday scenario when thinking about this sort of hypothetical, namely the ab-solute and total abolishment of abortion. But this would not be the necessary outcome of such a decision and realis-tically is highly unlikely. I admit that it would be a rare even for individual states to bar abortion in totality. In the most recent election, voters in conservative South Dakota resoundingly rejected just such a ban, and we could implement federal laws which guarantee abortion rights in extreme circumstances such as rape and incest. There are distinct posi-tive benefits which would arise out of this too. We would make more able state and local governments to tailor laws to match the interests and customs of their citizenry and we would allow national politics to turn from this nearly irresolvable and highly divisive issue to ones of more national importance such as balancing the budget, educa-tion and paying for college, and revamping our disastrous foreign policy. Perhaps it is time for those on both sides of the issue, not just those against it, to ask the question. Is Roe v. Wade really what we want?
