Roe Is Irrelevant

Armando recently posted a diary making an interesting counter-argument to the suggestion that Roe v. Wade has actually hurt the liberal movement rather than helped it. Armando suggests that "giving up" on Roe would be politically disastrous for Democrats. This, Armando argues, is because voters would see Dems as "complicit in destroying" the right to choose. Further, if Democrats "stopped fighting for the right to privacy", then why should the American people think the Dems stand for anything? Thus, Democrats must stand up for Roe to maintain a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, which is an issue on which we can win.

However, this argument is flawed, and I'll explain why.

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it suggests that Democrats need Roe to stand up for privacy rights. They do not. In fact, it is entirely consistent (and politically advantageous) for pro-choice Democrats to acknowledge that progressives no longer need Roe to fight for privacy and abortion rights, all the while taking a solid stance as a party on abortion, et al., and fighting as hard as hell for a progressive vision of constitutional rights legislatively.

I simply do not see why we specifically have use Roe as a proxy for standing up for privacy rights. Why can't we specifically acknowledge that Roe is irrelevant to our arguments for abortion/privacy rights, and if conservatives want to openly debate whether to support abortion/privacy rights, bring `em on.

Right now, even with Roe on the books, progressives should fight for national legislation specifically displaying Congressional affirmation of Roe and privacy rights in general. They should fight for a national abortion law establishing abortion as a constitutional right. They should force Republicans to vote against a bill affirming Griswold's reasoning. They should fight like hell to force Congress to acknowledge privacy as a Constitutional right. We shouldn't forget that Congress shares a role in protecting the Constitution - it is not just the judiciary's role.

I want to stress that this isn't some pedantic debate about constitutional theory. It gets to the very heart of the problem with the modern progressive movement. We have become too complacent that the judiciary will do the work of protecting privacy, rather than seeking to ensure this legislatively. (On a related note, as I argued here, relying on the judiciary will rarely produce the progressive victories many liberals think it inherently does).

Fighting for privacy rights does not require "standing up" for Roe. It requires fighting for privacy rights. We do not need Roe as a crutch for this argument, especially when the same crutch props up the modern conservative coalition. To me, it's an insult to the progressive movement to suggest we need the courts for our victories. We can, and will, do better.