George F. Will: The divisive debate that doesn't matter

Abortion's ‘So-What’ factor

Conclusion:

So, the overturning of Roe might not result from a Republican president's alteration of the court's balance. But suppose it did.


Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation. But because Californians are content with current abortion law, their legislature probably would adopt it in state law.


It is not irrational for voters to care deeply about a candidate's stance regarding abortion because that stance is accurately considered an important signifier of the candidate's sensibilities and sympathies, and of his or her notion of sound constitutional reasoning. But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.

Comments: Christians often look to politics for solutions to moral issues. Overturning Roe v Wade would not stop abortion, it would just turn it back to the states. Because of this, to make "abortion" a single issue on the selection of a Presidential candidate is unwise.

If you are a word lover, check out George Will's use of "ukase" in the 2nd paragraph. I thought it might have been a typo for "new case". See ukase in the M-W. Listen to the pronounciations (three of them). Here's your challenge: use it in a sentence at work this week. See if anyone understands you!