Supporters of Abortion Rights Should Fear a Supreme Court Shaped by Romney

Mitt Romney, shown here waving goodbye to legal abortion in red states.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/5449290064/sizes/z/in/photostream/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.


Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that paved the way for legal abortions in America, is likely to be in serious danger if GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is elected in November. The future of the nation’s highest court hasn’t gotten a lot of attention this election year, but the subject was thrown into stark relief on Friday, when Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, discussed it with a group of journalists at Netroots Nation. “Oh my god, it’s just immeasurable how bad it would be,” Richards said in response to a question from my colleague Andy Kroll about Romney’s potential impact on the court. “It’s difficult to make it a voting issue for average Americans because they don’t think of the Supreme Court every morning when they get up. But the next nominees to this court are going be critical.”

Given the aging profile of the Supreme Court, the next president is expected to nominate several justices. The court already has an active conservative majority, and the next nomination is likely to be for the spot of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 79. Stephen Breyer, another liberal justice, is 73; conservative Antonin Scalia and Republican-appointed Anthony Kennedy (often the swing vote) are 76 and 75, respectively. If all four step down during the next administration—something that’s certainly possible—whoever is president will have an opportunity to reshape the court in his image. Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, would be able to ensure that abortion remains legal for the foreseeable future. Romney, who believes states should be allowed to outlaw abortion, would almost certainly be able to ensure that would happen. (The Senate does have to confirm Supreme Court nominees, so control of that body will matter, too.)

Here are more of Richards’ comments:

Oh my god, it’s just immeasurable how bad it would be. I think right now, there are several cases that could get to the court on Roe. I don’t think anyone is confident that Roe will be upheld. You see more and more bills pass and signed at the state level that are unconstitutional under Roe and I think again the Supreme Court, it’s difficult to make it a voting issue for average Americans because they don’t think of the Supreme Court every morning when they get up. But the next nominees to this court are going to be critical. There’s just no way to overstate that.

[…]

The real concern is what could happen in this country if Roe is overturned or just continues to get chipped away at, and it just becomes a country more and more where women are safe in some states and not safe in others. That’s clearly what Mr Romney would like to see. I’ve seen that around the world and it’s not pretty. The divide that you see and we’re already seeing in this country is that women who have access to reproductive care—safe and legal abortion, birth control, cancer screenings—it becomes a have and have-not, and that’s what really of concern. Reproductive health care will always be available to women who have money. But not for women who are struggling just to have access to basic care.

 

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.