Where would the World be without Roe v Wade?

Thanks to Ignatius Insight for pointing out a Wall Street Journal Editorial on Where would the World be without Roe v Wade.

The author makes a point that I think of each time I go to vote, which I will be doing tomorrow. Without Roe v Wade, politics would be a lot healthier. Parties could focus on actual issues and not be forced to polarize on the single issue of abortion. Imagine, being able to focus on other issues, such as health care availability. Isn't it ironic that we have the "right" to kill our children, but not the right to gain access to health care for ourselves, or even those same children once they are born?

If Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion availability would fall, once again, to each state to decide. It would be left to the voters, and not to judges who acted, in the words of Archibald Cox, Watergate prosecutor as, "a body of Platonic Guardians charged with bringing the Constitution up to date . . . without regard to the past or the long-run sentiment of the people."

Thanks to these activist judges, the U.S. now has one of the world's most permissive laws on abortion. Most European countries allow abortion only with counseling, and only in the first or up to the early second trimester. In Great Britain and Japan, it is allowed only when the physical or mental health of the woman is at stake. The U.S. allows abortion-on-demand for anyone at any time. Only China and the former countries in the Soviet Union also fall under this category.

Roe v Wade has ruined the political climate in the United States and forced many of us to vote on one issue only, or risk voting against our consciences. Overturning it would not be the nightmare that is often portrayed.