Why pro-lifers shouldn’t give up on the Supreme Court

Pro-life advocates shouldn’t view the Supreme Court as a magical institution that will end abortion tomorrow once the right justices are confirmed. But neither should they cynically reject the Court’s value.

(Image: us.fotolia.com)

In a September 23rd America magazine piece entitled “Electing Republicans has not reversed Roe v. Wade. It’s time to change our strategy” DePaul University professor William Cavanaugh claims pro-life advocates should abandon the goal of electing pro-life presidents. He says the strategy has not led to Roe being overturned and probably never will lead to that victory.

But Cavanaugh’s arguments for this position don’t hold up to scrutiny.

For example, he says that “Roe v. Wade was decided in a 7-to-2 vote by a court with a 6-to-3 Republican majority; five of the six Republican appointees voted to legalize abortion.” But this is like pointing out that it was seven Democratic justices who upheld Dred Scott v Sanford (which denied citizenship to black Americans) and that the only two Republicans on the Court dissented from the ruling. If Democrats can only be judged by their party’s current views on race, then the same should be allowed for the Republican Party’s views on abortion.

Of course, abortion had nothing to do with either the Democratic or the Republican parties in the middle of the twentieth century. The Republican presidents who nominated the justices that upheld Roe v Wade—Eisenhower and Nixon—were not elected because of their views on abortion. Abortion didn’t become a national campaign issue until 1972 and, although Nixon did campaign on an anti-abortion platform during his re-election bid, he didn’t nominate any justices during his second term.

But what about the 1992 Planned Parenthood v Casey decision? “By 1992,” Cavanaugh says, “pro-life presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush had appointed five justices, giving the Republicans an 8-to-1 advantage . . . If ever Roe v. Wade was going to be overturned, this was the time.”

It’s true that some justices appointed by Republicans used Casey to uphold a general right to legal abortion. But they also upheld state-level restrictions on abortion that were not possible under Roe, such as mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws. And Casey itself could have had a very different outcome if Robert Bork had been confirmed in 1987 instead of perpetual “swing voter” Anthony Kennedy.

Indeed, Cavanaugh asks why Republican-appointed justices failed to overturn Roe in the past fifty years and floats as a hypothetical answer that “Democrats have prevented the Republicans from putting the justices they want on the Supreme Court.” He then rejects this hypothesis with the following reasoning:

Over the last 50 years, the Democrats have succeeded in blocking only one Republican nominee, Robert Bork in 1987, and it was not because of his views on abortion. Toward the nominees not accused of sexual misconduct, Democrats have until recently offered little resistance, even to the most conservative justices; Antonin Scalia, for example, was approved by the Senate on a 98-0 vote.

This short paragraph is shot through with historical amnesia and tortuous reasoning.

First, Democrats (with then-Sen. Joe Biden presiding over the hearings) seized on a variety of issues in order to oppose Bork, one of which was abortion. Just minutes after Bork was nominated, Sen. Ted Kennedy declared, “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions.” This detail is even mentioned in the Vox article Cavanaugh cites in defense of his gaslighting claim that opposition to Bork was “not because of his views on abortion.”

During the subsequent nomination period of Clarence Thomas, a speaker at a National Organization for Women conference said, “We’re going to Bork him. We’re going to kill him politically—this little creep.” “Bork” even entered the Oxford English dictionary in 2002 as a verb meaning “to defame or vilify (a person) systematically, especially in the mass media, usually to prevent his or her appointment to public office.”

Cavanaugh is correct that Antonin Scalia received a unanimous vote, but he was replacing Rehnquist, who had dissented against Roe, so it was recognized that the Court’s composition was not going to change dramatically. Even still, during the confirmation hearings for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, still-Sen. Joe Biden said his vote for Scalia was “The vote I most regret casting out of the ones I ever cast.”

In order to prevent future nominees from being “Borked,” pro-life presidents resorted to nominating justices who lacked a “paper trail”—legal opinions or rulings that made it seem as if they might overturn Roe. This, understandably, necessitated the nomination of milquetoast judges who lacked evidence of firm adherence to legal philosophies that could lead to a decision against Roe. Senator Ted Cruz put it this way:

Neither Souter nor Roberts had said much of anything. They didn’t have a paper trail, they wouldn’t have a fight. Whereas if you actually nominate a conservative, then you gotta spend some political capital. Then you gotta fight.

In addition, Cavanaugh’s claim that Democrats offered “little resistance” to conservatives not accused of sexual misconduct is false: forty-two senators voted against Samuel Alito and forty-five voted against Neil Gorsuch. It’s also specious because one could plausibly argue that the Democrats saved their most insidious “Borking” tactic, unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct, for conservative nominees slated to replace liberal judges.

This happened to Clarence Thomas, whose nomination (which he memorably called “a high-tech lynching”) was acrimonious—no doubt because he was going to replace Thurgood Marshall, a justice who had voted for Roe and even considered bans on federal funding for abortion to be unconstitutional (see his dissent in Harris v McRae). Likewise, when Brett Kavanagh was nominated to replace Anthony Kennedy, his contentious hearings prompted a rare display of outrage from normally reserved Sen. Lindsay Graham, who called the hearings “the most unethical sham” he’d ever seen.

So while Cavanaugh dismisses the theory that abortion is legal because the Democrats do everything they can to keep it legal, he endorses as “more plausible” the view that Republicans don’t really want Roe overturned, so that they can keep stringing along pro-life voters—including many Catholics who disagree with Republicans on other parts of their platform. Yet this reasoning makes no sense.

If Roe were overturned, Democrats would do everything in their power to reinstate it (whether by a future court case or a constitutional amendment). Pro-life Republicans would be able to rely on the votes of their pro-life constituents—to prevent a new Roe nationally and to enact legal prohibitions of abortion on the state level—just as Democrats have been able to rely on the continuing support of pro-abortion voters during the Roe era.

Cavanaugh also diminishes the importance of voting for a pro-life president because, he says, “There has been no significant difference in abortion rates under Republican and Democratic presidents. If anything, abortion rates have fallen slightly more rapidly under Democratic presidents.”

This is a prime example of correlation not equaling causation. Even left-leaning snopes.com says that “causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level.”

Moreover, sociologist Michael New has shown that state-level restrictions on abortion do reduce abortion rates, and as Richard Doerflinger noted his own reply to Cavanaugh,

Modest ‘incremental’ pro-life laws do reduce abortions. These have been upheld even by disappointing Republican nominees to the Supreme Court like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy and opposed by justices nominated by Democratic presidents since Mr. Clinton—a trend that Joe Biden pledges to continue. Especially important are bans on the public funding of abortion.

Indeed, in 2019, Vice-President Biden reversed his long-standing support of the Hyde Amendment and pledged to allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Republicans haven’t blundered when it comes to choosing Supreme Court nominees. The obvious example is Sandra Day O’Connor, whom Ronald Reagan nominated despite knowing about her sympathy to legal abortion. Reagan’s diary reveals that “the Gipper” may have simply had a misplaced optimism about O’Connor: “Right to Life people say she’s pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she’ll make a good Justice.”

Cavanaugh also claims that pro-life justices may not overturn Roe because of stare decisis, or the legal principle that judges should avoid overturning previous rulings. I’ll give Cavanaugh one point here: good justices are a necessary condition for overturning Roe. But they probably aren’t a sufficient condition.

The reason I say this is because in recent years the Court has conspicuously overturned previous rulings only after a plurality or majority of the public rejected the essence of those rulings. What else can explain a Court that would uphold bans on same-sex marriage in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) and sodomy in 1986 (Bowers v Hardwick) only to reverse those decisions in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges) and 2003 (Lawrence v Texas)?

This means that pro-life advocates should not view the Supreme Court as a magical institution that will end abortion tomorrow once the right justices are confirmed. But neither should they cynically reject the Court’s value just because a major victory against the Goliath of abortion hasn’t been achieved yet.

Instead, we should see the Court as an essential piece in the future outlawing of abortion and as a levee that holds back forces that want not just to maintain abortion, but subject to it our tax dollars and even our consciences. For example, in NIFLA v. Becerra (2018) the justices nominated by Democrats upheld a California law mandating that pro-life pregnancy centers advertise abortion services to their clients. Thankfully, the five justices nominated by Republican presidents overturned the law.

Given the stakes that are involved, it makes no sense to yield such a powerful institution to politicians intent on keeping abortion legal forever out of a speculative (and fallaciously reasoned) hope that abortions might go down a little bit more during their administrations. Instead, pro-lifers should do everything in their power not just to get the right justices confirmed, but even more importantly, to prevent the wrong justices from being confirmed; justices who will not only try to keep abortion legal forever but seek to expand it and impose it upon the American people.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Trent Horn 1 Article
Trent Horn holds master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics and serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers. He is the author of nine books, including Answering Atheism, The Case for Catholicism, and Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love.


  1. “Electing Republicans has not reversed Roe v. Wade. It’s time to change our strategy.”

    Cavanaugh is attempting to aid and abet Catholics in rationalizing doing that which is mortally sinful, voting for candidates who support “legal” baby murder, which is uniformly the case among Democrat party candidates.

    Here are some excerpts from an interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

    On the domestic level, what is most at stake in the upcoming election is the lives of the unborn, as well as of the elderly and sick, in the fight against those who would promote abortion and euthanasia …

    Certain issues can be legitimately debated, like the border wall with Mexico, but not the lives of unborn children, without being complicit in their murder. …

    The moral law declares a categorical ‘no’ to the killing of children in the womb, handicapped children after birth, and sick and elderly people …

    A candidate must be fundamentally assessed as to whether he or she fully recognizes and is prepared to uphold human rights, beginning with the right to life …

    … a candidate who does not clearly oppose abortion and euthanasia is unelectable for a person who believes in God, and especially for every Catholic, because abortion is a heinous crime against the life of the person and against God, the creator of every human life. …

    Anyone who subordinates the right to life to other objectives undermines democracy itself, which is not based on changing majority opinion, but on inalienable human rights …
    Exclusive: Former Vatican Chief Says ‘Future of Democracy’ at Stake in U.S. Elections

  2. Roger Taney said a black man has no rights a white man is bound to respect. Today Taney is held in contempt. Illogic cannot last forever, but at what price do we correct our course?

  3. “Cavanaugh also claims that pro-life justices may not overturn Roe because of stare decisis, or the legal principle that judges should avoid overturning previous rulings.”

    Perhaps; but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, though it took 62 years for that to happen.

  4. It’s very true that establishment GOP politicians have not done much to reverse Roe but that’s exactly why many of us voted for Trump & he’s led us as close as we’ve ever been to that goal. That’s also what most of the political anger against Pres. Trump is about: the real possibility of reversing Roe.

    • exactly, and then people will have to take long-term personal responsibility for their actions, including the male involved in the procreation act.

  5. Trent, since you guys are constantly pushing your books on folks, here’s one for you: Between the Icon and the Idol, by Artur Mrowczynski-Van Allen.

    • Strange comment, since he nowhere put any pitch for one of his books in this article. You didn’t really address any point he made, did you? If you think the book you cited would be a help to what was addressed here, go ahead and make your pitch.

  6. “America” magazine run by the disfunctional Jesuits is only nominally a Roman Catholic Publication. No credence should be given to it by any of the faithful.

  7. It isn’t as much a matter of “giving up” on the Supreme Court (although that isn’t an entirely unjustifiable position at this point) as it is how to get the Supreme Court back to being merely the Supreme Court instead of a judicial junta– without more judicial activism. Congress and state legislatures must be forced to assume their responsibilities again rather than the alternative, which is that Supreme Court justices are appointed based on their personal opinions instead of whether they have a command of the law and can interpret it impartially and responsibly. Republicans may think that controlling the Court is the way to go, but what happens when until Democrats regain control? Even if Judge Barrett is confirmed, what will stop a Democratic Senate from starting the ratchet again in the other direction? What if abortion is simply sent back to the states? That may be more along the lines of what Cavanaugh is thinking. After 50 years of indoctrination into the abortionist ideology, America won’t be turned around on a dime. Some states already have enacted abortionist legislation in case Roe is overturned.

    Finally, I have to agree with Cavanaugh that many Republicans are quite satisfied with the status quo. As long as Democrats see abortion as a sacrament, Republicans never have to deliver. They can just keep doing what they have been doing, and say, “What are you going to do, vote for Democrats?” In that vein, I have to credit President Trump for delivering more than any President in the last 50 years, maybe even Ronald Reagan. He actually understands where his bread and butter is and he acts like someone who really wants our votes, regardless of his underlying motivations, which I can’t know. Many Republicans don’t understand that or don’t care, and for that reason I can certainly sympathize with those who may want to vote for minor party or write-in candidates instead of Democrats or Republicans. About the only other approach is to retake control of the Democratic Party from abortionists so that pro-life people actually have a choice again, but that first requires registering as a Democrat and fighting a long, hard battle that may last more than a lifetime and will not yield any immediate fruit.

  8. Until people, most especially Catholics, put sex back in its proper place, abortion is here to stay. Perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade, but then it just goes back to the various States.
    I view the “pro-life” label as an indication on where politicians and justices stand on other issues. A pro-life justice is more likely to uphold freedom of speech (1st Amend.) and freedom of self-defence (2nd Amend.)

  9. It’s over, people. Trump is going to lose and Congress will be in control of the Democrats. They will pack the court and control everything. I say this as a despondent Trump supporter.

    • I don’t know Carol. I was just reading an Australian article that predicted a Trump victory if he survived Covid. Who knows?

      The author pointed out that President Trump spoke with more energy while hospitalized than Mr. Biden has on even his better days.
      We’ll see.
      In October 2016 the Trump campaign seemed to be over after the release of that tape with his vulgar comments about women. And he still went on to win. We continue to underestimate Donald Trump. It looks like the Corona virus did also. Praise God.

      • Trump will likely win, but the Democrats are working extremely hard on stealing the election, and they just may be able to pull it off this time. That’s what concerns me.

  10. With regard to the opponents of abortion, their heart is in the right place, but we should remember the words of Our Lady of Fatima: “You cannot help yourselves. Only I can help you.” Specifically, she listed as her main condition that the pope in union with the Catholic bishops consecrate Russia by name to her in a solemn public ceremony. Since the pope and the bishops have not yet seen fit to do this, America and the rest of the world continue to stumble from one crisis to the next.

    • Oh, yeah, God and Mary are waiting for a technicality to be met before bestowing graces on the world. Yeah, sure. Fatima isn’t public revelation, by the way. What was the consecration of America to Mary about and for? Everything is going to pot, and you think it’s the result of a technical omission in the spiritual realm.

      • Kevin,
        Where in scripture do you find Christ promising us material comfort with no persecution or hardship in this present life?

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Why pro-lifers shouldn’t give up on the Supreme Court - Catholic Mass Search

Leave a Reply to harry Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.