NRL News

Roe v. Wade: a hugely regressive decision masked as “progressive”

by | Jan 20, 2014


By Lauren Enriquez

regressiveroe2014 marks the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the tragic Supreme Court decision that (in conjunction with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) essentially legalized abortion on-demand in the United States, throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade was a shoddy court case, brought to the Supreme Court by a lawyer with an agenda (Sarah Weddington), who used a vulnerable young woman in crisis (Norma McCorvey, or “Jane Roe”) as a means to achieve the end of legalized abortion on-demand in the United States. [1]

How did Roe v. Wade justify its decision? What does that tell us about how to overturn it?

Roe v. Wade justified the legalized killing of human beings who were still in utero by claiming, in its majority decision, not to be able to conclude the “difficult question of when life begins.” But the question of “when life begins” is precisely what determines the rightness or wrongness of ending whatever kind of existence occurs inside the womb. It would be logical to argue that, even if the courts could not determine the answer to this question of life, they should have erred on the side of caution and postponed the legalization of abortion until they could determine whether or not the contents of a pregnant uterus were alive.

Ironically, even 41 years ago, the authors of Roe’s and Doe’s majority decisions (principally Harry Blackmun) could not claim ignorance on this matter, which makes their decisions even more egregious.

Contrary to what some Millennials may believe, the 1970’s were not the Stone Age of science. Popular embryology had definitively established the answer to the Supreme Court’s “difficult question” long before Sarah Weddington ever came to the court with her agenda.

As early as the 1960s, embryological sciences taught that a unique human life began with the joining of the male and female gametes. That means that before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, science had already demonstrated that life begins at fertilization, and the court’s justification for allowing abortion had no legs on which to stand. [2]

The majority opinion was fallacious and dishonest, developed to downgrade a class of human beings for the sake of an agenda. So how and why was a decision that on its face was regressive accepted as “progressive”? The answer: “women’s rights.”

Abortion on-demand was marketed by its ideologues as a women’s rights issue. Having postulated an ambiguity about the existence of life in the womb, the court could subsequently claim that abortion affected only one person – the woman – and that government interference in a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy (via abortion’s status as illegal), was thus unconstitutional.

A woman had a “right to privacy” regarding what she did with “her own body,” according to the Supreme Court. So, by means of abandoning science and logic, the Supreme Court successfully established a “right to abortion.” Every day since January 22nd, 1973, has been a war between those who understand and value the humanity of the pre-born, and those who choose to cling to the slippery vestiges of a shoddy Supreme Court decision.

Pro-lifers have never aspired to —or needed to—reverse the legalization of abortion by the embarrassingly slipshod way Roe and Doe established it.

To the dismay of the shrinking “progressive” community that upholds the evanescent right to abortion, the case for life has been mounting, supported by a growing body of science and technology that prove without the shadow of a doubt that abortion ends a defenseless human life.

Equally as important is the fact that the pro-life cause has also been the one to turn the tide of popular opinion by convicting individual hearts and minds that life in the womb is worthy of defense, and that abortion is therefore an offense against humanity.

Recent trends prove that abortion is on the downturn [3], and given the disparity between the arguments for and against abortion, it seems unlikely that this momentum will be reversed. But we can never fall back on presumption when human lives are at stake.

Slavery went on for many years in the United States before the humanity of Black Americans was accepted, both legally and on an individual level. We cannot expect an easier fight this time around, when we are dealing with a community of persons whose voices cannot be heard, and who cannot even be seen while they are hidden in their mother’s wombs.

Roe v. Wade has silently, insidiously caused the deaths of tens of millions of Americans. That is why we cannot rest until we have turned the tide in all fifty states¸ one-by-one.

Roe v. Wade is viewed as “progress” by “progressive” organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Democratic Party, and Planned Parenthood.  But Roe v. Wade was never, as it claimed, about the best interests of women; it was about proffering an ideological agenda that eliminated the right to life of an entire class of persons: the pre-born.

[1] It seems as if only pro-lifers know that McCorvey never had an abortion and later became a staunch pro-lifer

[2] Of course as early as the mid-19th Century, without the benefit of the sophisticated equipment we’ve had for 60+ years, physicians understood that life began at conception. See “The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion,”

[3] See “CDC Report Shows Decline in Abortions for 2010; abortion rates and ratios both down,”

Please send your comments to

Categories: Roe v. Wade