Replies

... tough questions come up more frequently than they did in the first years after Roe, as more is known about the choices some women and couples make, and fetuses have become as visible as women.
Reason No. 1: Some of the reasons mothers abort, such as male gender preference, are becoming harder to defend, even among abortion proponents.
Reason No. 2: Post-abortive mothers who regret the choice they made are clarifying there is an aftermath.
Reason No. 3: The advancement of ultrasound imagery has gutted the pro-abort "blobs of tissue" line. Everyone now knows it is real babies who are suctioned, sliced, and diced when aborted.

Another excellent reason is that comprehensive legal protections for unwed mothers now exist that did not exist at the time Roe was passed. Some of the arguments used in suing for Roe were due to pregnancy being regarded then as an obstacle to employment. At that time,

* any pregnant woman, married or single, could be fired from a job, or dismissed from school or college,

* young women of childbearing age found it difficult to land a job or get equal pay, since they were expected to leave upon having a child,

* unmarried pregnant women faced a near-total social disapproval and rejection from parents, church and community members in a way that the impregnating male did not;

* teenage unwed mothers were sometimes thrown out of the house or beaten by their parent(s), and

* the impregnating boy or man could often deny paternity and/or elude having to pay support.

The timing of Roe coincided with the onset of civil rights suits for women's employment equality. Today, legislation is in place that provides legal remedies for all of these conditions. Hence, any survival rationale for terminating a pregnancy has been removed.