No one knows how Alito would vote on any future abortion case -- and he's not likely to tip his hand at confirmation hearings, any more than Chief Justice John Roberts did at his or Clinton-appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did at hers, for that matter. But let's just assume for a moment that Roe v. Wade will be reversed if Alito is confirmed. Would abortion suddenly become illegal in the United States? Would women seeking abortions be forced into back alleys, as the Democrats are fond of asserting? Hardly. A reversal on Roe v. Wade would simply turn the issue of abortion back to the states. At the time Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, most states were in the process of liberalizing abortion laws. Today, after more than 30 years of virtually unfettered access to abortion, it is unlikely that many states would pass restrictive laws.
Public opinion polls show a substantial majority of Americans would not like to see abortion outlawed altogether, but would favor some restrictions placed on the procedure. For example, about two-thirds of Americans would not allow abortions in the fifth or subsequent months of pregnancy unless the mother's health or life was in danger. Similar majorities favor parental notification for girls under 18 who seek abortions -- a restriction the Supreme Court has countenanced so long as the girl could appeal to a judge who could bypass notification. And Americans overwhelmingly oppose "partial birth abortions," which most often occur late in pregnancy and involve a particularly gruesome procedure to collapse the fetus' skull before removing the body vaginally.
Democrats' hysterical predictions notwithstanding, the Supreme Court -- even one dominated by anti-Roe justices -- cannot outlaw abortion. What a reversal of Roe v. Wade would do would be to return this most divisive and emotional issue to the people to decide through their elected legislatures. That's no excuse for opposing Samuel Alito.