So long as there's two sizable voting blocs for which it's seen as an existential issue- fetal lives or women's lives, depending on who you ask- it's going to become a polarizing issue in a two-party system. Definitely not an issue I like to touch. It seems ridiculous to pick birth as an arbitrary magic line for when human rights begin, but then also, why should the fetus have any more value than the mother, especially before it's recognizably developed (which itself could open up its own can of worms about anthropocentrism)? Trouble is, there's really no middle ground you could take- in fact, that makes you a murderer to both sides. The pro-choicers certainly have a point that it's a proxy for the religious right to control society, and that also muddies the waters a lot. There's also pro-choice rhetoric which undeniably, unhelpfully, alienates the other parent. That's a valid concern. On top of all that, you have the sustainability angle- do we need this for the environment, or is this a slippery slope into some insidious population control scheme and we actually need more kids for the demographic deficit?- and the debate over the ethics of giving birth to disabled kids- is not having them mercy or genocide? It's an absolutely radioactive issue, nothing that can just be swept under the rug.
I guess the reason it didn't used to be such an issue is that a federal government powerful enough to enforce one position or the other is a fairly new development- still a pipe dream to think no abortions are going on in red states now, of course- and human rights and lives really weren't valued as much either way until disturbingly recently, both mothers and infants had much higher mortality rates anyway. And then there was that mid-century mentality of not rocking the boat by talking about social issues that persisted among the older crop of voters and politicians well after the 1960s. But by the time Roe v. Wade happened, the parties' positions were baked in by conservative discontent with liberal intellectual dominance in the Democratic Party, and the writing was on the wall about where the conservative Southerners were going back in 1948 at the latest. You'd have to make an alternate history where the Dixiecrats dominated the party in time for the Democrats to capture the conservative backlash to the counterculture, and that would involve preventing the New Deal Coalition.
If you zoom out, it's gone back and forth a few times over US history. In the beginning, a regime that was somewhat more pro-life than Roe but not absolutist was inherited from English common law. It was based on the ancient concept of "quickening" (when the mother and/or a 3rd party observer can feel the baby move) as when legally protected life begins. This generally would not be detectable until the end of the 1st trimester, especially with ancient levels of medical knowledge. There are also writings by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a medical doctor who was one of the founding fathers and a devout Christian suggesting that a 1st trimester miscarriage had no more significance than a patient coughing up blood.
Then, with early advances in embryology, we ended up seeing nearly every state outlaw abortion outside of medical emergencies after the civil war, with this regime persisting from the late 19th century until the 1960's until around 1970, with just a few states legalizing elective abortion by legislative action pre-Roe.
Then of course we had the most pro-choice regime in US history from 1973-2003, with gradually more restrictions being tolerated thereafter until states were again allowed to ban in 2022. However, less than half the states have done this thus far and many that tried have since been repealed.
Also, I don't agree that an abortion ban would be inherently easier to enforce today. In the past, nearly all abortions were surgery, something that is complex, centralized, and requires advanced training. Therefore, it is reasonable for a government even of limited means to regulate surgery. Today, most abortions are done by taking pills, which under certain circumstances can now be delivered through telemedicine. Even with modern technology, this is much more challenging to regulate and feels like a much closer parallel to the failed attempt to shut down alcohol sales during Prohibition. However, all abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy generally are still surgical.
If I had to guess, I think things will stabilize close to the ancient "quickening"/1st trimester standard in the long run.
Poll
