Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.
-- Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Today is the 32nd anniversary of the announcement of LBJ's death; it also is the anniversary of the handing down of Roe v. Wade.. Though the more apt precedent is Casey (both in its breadth and analysis), Roe remains the symbol all rally around, reference, and/or oppose.
There is some talk now that pro-choice forces should take a hard look at their position and temper it some so that pro-life forces (or those in some way sympathetic to them -- many who support legalized abortion personally oppose it and/or want to see it limited in some fashion) see that they are not extremists. I think there is some exaggeration going on here, but as I suggested in the past, some reframing might be warranted:
My overall philosophy is that true family planning is what is at stake here. This includes determining when a person will have a family, how large said family will be, and to make individual moral choices on the creation of said family. It's an interrelated whole like local clinics near me where not just abortions are performed (the power of the abortion pill is in part that opponents can't focus just on "abortion clinics" any more). Those who seize the word "family" for their own purposes, defining what it means, are the true threat.
See also here on the subject of science policy -- the problem might be the tendency to see abortion as a single issue that dominates, when it is fact but one of a wider range of subjects:
Since when did choice mean just abortion? Conversations about sex education, contraceptive access and equity, and providing for families seem to be perpetually drowned out by the abortion fight, yet true freedom of choice includes a broad range of reproductive health options for women throughout their lives.
Likewise, there is a sentiment that the right to abortion is mostly safe, so why not think about overturning Roe? This is ill-advised, as suggested by an account of the situation in Mississippi today. Overturning Casey will change little in some areas, but any number of teens and women (largely along the margins) as well as their families and communities will be affected in any number of ways. Some might support the result, but the result would be significant all the same.
Finally, there is the general tendency to make fun of Roe as well as other opinions it was based on such as Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptives). I would argue that Casey does a fairly good job defending the right to choose an abortion, raising constitutional issues such as equality, moral choices, privacy, and so forth. And, Roe leaves a bit to desired as a matter of legal analysis. Still, the idea it is simply horrible (along with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) is exaggerated.
If one reads up on the behind the scenes dynamics in books like The Brethren, one understands a bit better why it was written how it was. It still is unfortunate that it wasn't written better, though the net effect this would bring is unclear (for instance, pro-life forces did not suddenly arise in Jan. 1973. Abortion laws were being liberalized for some years, and pro-life forces would not suddenly lay down if "baby killers" were authorized by legislatures.)
All the same, a few words on the reasoning. First, there has been some ridicule on Griswold because of the use of words like "penumbra" and "emanations." Ill chosen words, surely, but words the author of that opinion used in the past to discuss such things as government powers that flow from but aren't limited to the bare words of constitutional provisions.
Likewise, Justice Douglas' views of the right of privacy were expressed for some years before the contraceptives case. And, how he framed them is fairly interesting. The below is an excerpt from a 1957 lecture bound in a book entitled The Right of the People:
They have a broad base in morality and religion to protect man, his individuality, and his conscience against direct and indirect interference by government. Some are written explicitly into the Constitution. Others are implied from the very nature of man as a child of God. These human rights were the products of political thinking and of moral and religious influences.
He is speaking in support of the "right to be left alone," but the underlining principles go beyond that specific right. As expressed in his concurring opinion in Doe v. Bolton, Justice Douglas saw privacy as a fundamental basis to all rights, a basic sphere to be able to develop and enjoy one's facilities and life. This privacy is one of space (home etc.), person (including health and well being), associations (incl. families), thought (including personal morality), and so forth. And, it is a theme that is recurring in constitutional opinions since the 19th century.
But, the "constitutional right to privacy," one the average person feels deep down is inherently obvious, apparently just popped up in the minds of some liberals in the 1960s to further birth control and abortion.
Not quite, and this and other complexities of the issues at hand will continue to be debated when Roe is sixty years old.