Jacob Sullum

Democrats worry that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will vote against a constitutional right to abortion and against an expansive view of congressional power. But if the first prediction is accurate, they should hope the second one is too.

 Assuming Alito is inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the Supreme Court started dictating the contours of state abortion laws, confirming him would leave a five-justice majority in support of the decision. Then Roe v. Wade's demise might be just one more vacancy away.

 That prospect should give Democrats a new appreciation for federalism.  They stand to benefit if Roe v. Wade's reversal returns the abortion issue to state legislatures.

 Surveys indicate that most Americans want abortion to remain legally available, although they disagree about exactly how loose the rules should be. The threat of new restrictions would energize Democrats and handicap Republicans, who currently can appeal to conservatives by proclaiming themselves pro-life without losing much support among moderates. When abortion is once again a live issue in every state legislature, they won't have that luxury anymore.

 Since most voters do not want the government to ban or severely restrict abortion, most state legislatures would not choose to do so in the wake of Roe v. Wade's reversal, although some might. Regulations would vary from state to state, and abortion policy would become another factor in the competition between states for residents and tax dollars. Instead of conforming to a single, nationwide policy, people could vote with their feet for the approach they liked best.

 But what if Congress tried to shut down the laboratories of democracy, something it has been known to do in areas ranging from speed limits to education? If Congress decided to restrict or ban abortion at the federal level, it would be the Supreme Court's job to enforce the constitutional distinction between local and national matters.

 This scenario is by no means purely hypothetical. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, purportedly grounded in Congress' power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," prohibits the abortion procedure known in the trade as "intact dilation and extraction." The law applies to "partial birth" abortions "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce," which is boilerplate meant to encompass all uses of the forbidden method.


Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate