Dispelling misconceptions about the pending abortion case

I'm subbing for Deb this week because she is under the weather. I ask her faithful readers to be patient. She will return.Before I plunge into today's column, I need to express regret and apology for an inadvertent error in last week's column. I said that the Kenosha, Wisconsin, riots last year were sparked by the fatal shooting of Jacob Blake. There was a shooting. Riots did follow. But the shooting was not fatal. Blake, although paralyzed from the waist down, is alive.What makes the error embarrassing is that later in the column, I took much of the national news media to task for misleading reporting about the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I do not believe I was wrong to do so. I do not believe my mistake vitiates my point. But the fact remains that I should have done a better job of fact-checking myself before submitting the column. I'll try to do better in the future.Note one thing about this newspaper. When readers pointed out my error, the Times News quickly corrected it. That's a sight better than the media outlets I complained about have done with the Rittenhouse case.Moving on to another case, recent oral argument in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has created quite a stir. Several Supreme Court justices appeared to express willingness to reverse the controversial but long-standing ruling in Roe v. Wade. That created panicked responses from some politicians. Because those responses have been reported, I think it worthwhile to clarify what is going on.First, Roe v. Wade, as decided in 1973, is no longer the law anyway. It was modified by the subsequent ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. But since both cases sharply curtailed the ability of states to regulate abortion, both are now up for reconsideration in the Dobbs case.Secondly, it's important to note exactly what is at issue in the Dobbs case. Mississippi has enacted a law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks into the term, with exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's health. It does not "ban" abortion, and it applies only in Mississippi. If the Supreme Court reverses the lower court ruling that held the statute invalid under the Casey case, the result would not be an immediate nationwide ban of abortions, as some panicked politicos have suggested.Third, the Supreme Court does not necessarily have to overturn Roe and Casey to uphold the Mississippi statute. It could simply say the statute passes muster under the court's present interpretation of Casey. It's true that some of the justices expressed discontent with Roe and Casey during oral argument, but judges "think out loud" during argument, and it's dangerous to jump to conclusions about what they say at that time.Ever since Roe was decided in 1973, it's been the target of criticism from legal scholars, whatever their abortion policy preferences. Even the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg — no right-wing extremist or pro-life advocate — was heard to criticize the decision. It's not surprising those critiques would show up in argument. Personally, I decline to predict what the justices will do.Fourth, even if the Supreme Court goes so far as to completely reverse Roe and Casey, I am not sure how much will change across the country, and how severe the political consequences will be.Reversing Roe and Casey would end abortion as a constitutional right, subject to only narrow regulation. It would not end debate on the extent to which regulation is desirable. Right now, every state has an abortion statute. Some states, for example New York, are very permissive.Other states have statutes that are as restrictive as their legislatures think the Roe and Casey decisions will allow.The permissive states aren't going to do anything to change their statutes.If the Mississippi law, under any rationale, is upheld, a number of states, probably including Tennessee, will likely tighten up their laws along the lines of the Mississippi statute. But few, if any, are likely to ban abortion. There is little public support for going that far anywhere, in my opinion, even though there is widespread unhappiness with late-term abortion.The national rate of abortion has thankfully been declining for years. At least one source I read claims that most abortions are early-term, prior to the 15 weeks allowed by the Mississippi statute.For these reasons, what the Supreme Court does may not make as much difference to most Americans as some claim, or fear.