The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Or so it seems with the debate surrounding abortion. Thirty years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Roe v. Wade to legalize the practice. At Duke, the anniversary has sparked a wide range of discussion on the ruling's significance, as well as a reexamination of the seemingly stagnant debate.
"The decision itself was a landmark in judicial review. Many advocates say that Roe v. Wade 'recognized' a woman's right to choose, but in fact it created that right," Professor and Chair of Political Science Michael Munger wrote in an e-mail. "The 30-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade marks the continuing controversy that attends an attempt of overt judicial legislation."
Supreme Court justices ruled January 22, 1973, to give women a qualified constitutional right to an abortion during most of a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade challenged a Texas law that banned abortions except to save the mother's life. In the decision, Justice Harry Blackmun argued laws banning abortion violate due process of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the court said protects a woman's right to privacy against state action. This privacy, which some argue has little constitutional basis, includes a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
The justices also qualified when abortions could take place: no government regulation during the first three months; limited regulation in the second trimester to protect the woman's health and safety; and government power to ban abortions during the third trimester, during which physicians have agreed the fetus is capable of living on its own.
However, medical advances have changed dramatically in the last 30 years, creating more ambiguity.
"The word 'abortion' doesn't really cover the scientific and technical possibilities and we don't have a consensus on how these possibilities should be regulated," said Jean O'Barr, professor of the practice in the women's studies program and former chair. "Debate is particularly intense because there are so many things we still don't know."
Some perceive the discussion on abortion shifting from civil rights concerns to broader morality issues.
"The 60s and early 70s were a time of civil liberty concern across the board," said Laura Edwards, associate professor of history. "Civil liberties are not as much the focus of our politics but we're moving toward concern for substantive morality and revisiting issues of economics, which might be good considering how strong religion and morality are talked about in mainstream politics."
However, while some believe the Roe v. Wade decision opened doors for women, others do not think there have been necessary parallel shifts in structural or cultural treatment of women.
Amy Laura Hall, assistant professor in the Divinity School, said the decision was, for many, the only answer to the question of the tragically unexpected pregnancy resulting from non-consensual sex.
"Roe v. Wade was also, for some, a concession made in the face of a society unwilling to make room for women and children in the larger economy," Hall wrote in an e-mail.
Although Duke administrators are expected to announce major changes to University policy this semester, Hall cited current limited maternity leave options for pregnant women at Duke as an example of these societal inconsistencies.
"Since Roe v. Wade, women have entered all sectors of the workforce, but the workforce has hardly changed to accommodate the fact that women have babies.... This is, increasingly, a culture that accepts abortion as a tool to keep women compliant with the norms of the U.S. market," Hall wrote. "I find Roe vs. Wade to be a dubious victory for women and children."
The 1973 decision also spurred considerable political attention to Supreme Court nominations. This year, for example, some speculate that President George W. Bush may have the opportunity to replace two retiring justices-a move that could significantly alter the balance of the high court, which is currently considered to hold a 5-4 majority supporting abortion.
"It is truly unfortunate that public debate about Supreme Court nominees tends to focus on the particular candidate's views, or non-views, on the abortion question," said Professor of Law Thomas Metzloff. "The often singular focus on a possible candidates views on abortion, to the exclusion of a broader consideration of the candidate's overall judicial philosophy and abilities has, and will, continue to be harmful."
Thirty years after the decision, little has changed in the abortion debate.
"To me, [the abortion question] really points to some unresolveable conflict. I can't think how you can get people to compromise and that's why this issue is so frightening to people," said Will Willimon, dean of the Chapel. "I was looking back at a seminary I wrote while I was at Yale Divinity School about the [abortion] debate and I was disappointed because it was the same debate then. I get the sense people are exhausted after 30 years of discussion."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.