Despite the public debate surrounding the possibility that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade, Northwestern Law Prof. Thomas Merrill said a reversal on the decision would not drastically alter current abortion laws.
“My guess is that there would be an abortion rights compromise, with different state legislatures taking different lines on the issue,” Merrill said.
Merrill participated in a debate about the constitutionality of the Roe v. Wade decision Tuesday night in front of about 40 students in Harris Hall. He argued both sides of the issue after a lawyer from the National Organization for Women cancelled at the last minute, leaving Medill senior and Women’s Coalition representative Kristina Buchthal to defend the Supreme Court decision against Merrill and Speech team assistant coach Nathan Mather, a Weinberg senior.
Merrill opened the debate, which was sponsored by Phi Alpha Delta law fraternity, by arguing that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds with its decision in the Roe v. Wade case, which says a woman’s right to an abortion is protected by the 14th amendment. That decision took away states’ rights to make abortions illegal and gave women autonomy over abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.
But Merrill said the Supreme Court has no constitutional ground to override state’s authority, and it was therefore making policy, a job the constitution defers to state legislatures.
He later defended the Roe v. Wade decision by pointing out the cultural changes that have occurred in America since the 1973 decision.
“You can’t go back and change time,” he said. “Culture has transformed. We think differently about sex and pregnancy than we did. Two generations of women have had abortion open as a fail-safe to them.”
Buchthal, who is an assistant city editor for The Daily, said the Supreme Court should protect citizens from the government trying to control what people do with their bodies. She said giving government control over abortions is akin to China’s policy limiting families to having one child.
“If the government tells a woman she can’t have an abortion, what’s to stop it from forcing the woman to have an abortion?” she asked.
But Mather said the debate wasn’t about whether abortions were right. He said the Supreme Court clearly violated the 10th amendment, which says any power not given to the federal government in the constitution is reserved for state governments.
“We should leave the abortion question up to state legislatures and see what this country truly wants,” he said.
Some students said they were not sure women want the right to have an abortion. Political science graduate student Zachary Cook said he believed a majority of women in his home state of Louisiana do not want the right to choose.
“Louisiana is very culturally conservative about women in general, and it’s one of the most religious states,” he said.
Merrill said the Roe v. Wade decision also has affected men.
“It has increased a predatory attitude among men and sex,” he said. “The most enthusiastic supporters of Roe v. Wade are young, single men.”
