Skip To Content
JEWISH. INDEPENDENT. NONPROFIT.
Back to Opinion
Make a matched gift and support Jewish journalism. DONATE NOW

Whoever is Elected, Roe v. Wade is Unlikely to Change. Here’s Why.

This piece is part of a series about the issues in the 2016 presidential election.

Despite the fact that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 43 years, access to abortion is still one of the major issues impacting many Americans’ vote during Presidential election years. On the Left, voters refuse to support a candidate who opposes the landmark Supreme Court decision, and on the Right, just as many could never throw their vote behind a candidate who won’t do everything in their power to overturn it.

There is little, however, that a President can do to impact access to abortion one way or another. This year is slightly different, given the open spot on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If Hillary Clinton is nominated, many conservatives fear the Court will be “lost” for a generation or more, as the ideological leaning of the court will then tip 5-4 towards a more liberal method of interpreting the law with a Clinton replacement of Scalia. Given the fact that four of the justices are approaching 80 years old and will have served on the bench between 20-30 years during the next administration, it is possible the future President might fill up to four vacancies during their term. It is the future of the Supreme Court that has led many otherwise reluctant Republicans to grudgingly support Donald Trump for President.

If a Clinton Presidency comes to pass, it is likely that little will change in the way of abortion access. Clinton holds an extreme position on the procedure, holding that it should be legal, without any restrictions, at any point in a pregnancy, even the last weeks (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/). Contrast her position with the vast majority of Americans; in a recent poll 80 percent supported restricting the procedure to just the first trimester.

But is Donald Trump the pro-life alternative to Hillary Clinton? Is he even pro-life? In January the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard reported on past comments of Trump’s on abortion:

In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on “abortion in the third-trimester” or “partial-birth abortion.” “No,” Trump replied. “I am pro-choice in every respect.”

That position is just as extreme as Clinton’s. It’s unclear how Trump’s views have changed, or what position he currently holds. In April the candidate held five different positions on abortion in just a three day span, including several which are directly in contrast with mainstream pro-life thinking, especially as it relates to “punishing” the mother.

Does Trump plan to nominate conservative or pro-life Supreme Court justices? As with everything else related to Trump, the answer depends on the day. As evidenced by how he’s decided to run for President, Trump does not care if he has the support of the Republican Party. Given his shaky position on an unborn child’s right to life, what motivation does he have to nominate justices acceptable to the more socially conservative wing of his party, much of which have opposed his candidacy?

Given that the choice for President is between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, it is unlikely much will change for those who vote with the consequences of Roe v. Wade weighing on their conscience, one way or another.

This is a moment of great uncertainty. Here’s what you can do about it.

We hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, we’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s independent Jewish news. All donations are still being matched by the Forward Board - up to $100,000 until April 24.

This is a moment of great uncertainty for the news media, for the Jewish people, and for our sacred democracy. It is a time of confusion and declining trust in public institutions. An era in which we need humans to report facts, conduct investigations that hold power to account, tell stories that matter and share honest discourse on all that divides us.

With no paywall or subscriptions, the Forward is entirely supported by readers like you. Every dollar you give is invested in the future of the Forward — and telling the American Jewish story fully and fairly.

The Forward doesn’t rely on funding from institutions like governments or your local Jewish federation. There are thousands of readers like you who give us $18 or $36 or $100 each month or year.

Support our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines.
You must comply with the following:

  • Credit the Forward
  • Retain our pixel
  • Preserve our canonical link in Google search
  • Add a noindex tag in Google search

See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at [email protected], subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.