The UCLA School of Law held a debate Wednesday on the future of
the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, with speakers
including Cathy Ruse, a fellow of the Family Research Council, and
Mary-Jane Wagle, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Los
Angeles.
The landmark court decision made most laws against abortion
unconstitutional.
The debate came the day after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a
case challenging the federal law restricting late-term
abortion.
The two panelists discussed what the future would look like if
the Supreme Court overruled the decision.
Wagle, who emphasized the woman’s right to privacy and
control over her own body, said overturning the decision would
create a situation in which each state would decide on the legality
of abortion.
About 14 to 16 states would have legal abortion, and the rest
would have various forms of prohibitions, she said. But the state
decisions might not be the final say.
“Congress would then be free to make national laws to
trump state laws,” Wagle said.
Ruse focused on bringing the decision on abortion back to the
people, saying even abortion rights voices have questioned the
legitimacy of Roe v. Wade.
She discussed statistics that pointed to low death rates from
abortions when they were illegal, which conflicts with the idea
that prohibiting abortion would be more dangerous to women.
Wagle disputed the numbers Ruse presented.
Ruse also emphasized putting the decision on abortion in the
states’ hands as the best approach. Polls show the American
people support abortion rights in limited circumstances, but Roe v.
Wade does not include any limitations, she said.
But the repercussions of any Supreme Court ruling on the case at
hand may be limited.
A question that has been brought up in earlier cases is whether
laws restricting late-term abortions have been vague enough to
include other types of abortions, said Stephen Gardbaum, a UCLA law
professor.
But if the case will only include late-term abortions, there is
a “narrow legal question that’s at issue,” he
said.
The law being contested prohibits late-term abortions and does
not make exceptions for cases in which the procedure would protect
the mother’s health, because Congress determined such
procedures are never necessary for the health of the mother.
The law does, however, allow other abortion procedures to save
the mother’s life.
Gardbaum said there is probably no other common procedure, aside
from late-term abortion, where the lack of a health-exception rule
would be similarly justified.
He said the two clauses do not seem consistent, and he was
unsure how the need to save a mother’s life would not also be
helpful to her health.
Ruse said the inclusion of the life exception was for political
purposes.
Jonathan Varat, a UCLA law professor and the moderator of the
event, said a key issue in the upcoming Supreme Court decision will
be whether the court decides to defer to Congress’ formal
decision that late-term abortions are never medically
necessary.
The federal courts, which have challenged the constitutionality
of the act, have ruled there was no consensus on the
health-exception issue in testimony given to them or to Congress,
he said.
Toward the end of the debate, the panelists’ discussion
veered toward the importance of contraceptives in the abortion
debate.
Wagle stressed their importance, stating that some believe if
emergency contraceptives were more readily available, it would
decrease abortions by half.
But Ruse discussed the fact that contraceptives can fail,
leaving many unplanned pregnancies.
“It is naive to suggest that contraceptives are sort of an
easy answer to the issue of abortions,” she said.
Ruse and Wagle did not concur on the status of emergency
contraceptives. Wagle refuted the claim that such pills are a form
of abortion, saying they simply prevent fertilization. Ruse said
the pill works partially as a contraceptive and also continues
working after an egg has been fertilized.