Welcome to the Kavanaugh Confirmation edition of the Roe v Wade discussion!
Here’s the question: Is it best to overturn Roe v Wade all at once, or to make piecemeal progress over time? I ask because with Kavanaugh’s pending confirmation hearings to SCOTUS (US Supreme Court), there is much discussion about the potential ability to overturn Roe outright. So, if the court has the ability to overturn Roe completely, should it?
About two months ago, I encountered an opinion over at the CatholicMatch.com forums arguing that the process of overturning ought to be slow. I was quite struck by this opinion, as it was something that I hadn’t considered before. After thinking over it for a bit, I found it compelling: Let’s say that SCOTUS overturned Roe tomorrow. That decision would be overturned the next time that there was a liberal majority on the court, period. We would then probably enter a period where the decision would be overturned over and over again. Eventually, moderates would lose interest in the debate, and a decision would be reached that would be stable for a long period. Given the relatively long status quo of legal abortion, odds are that the stable decision would be pro-choice. Therefore, I rationalize that this battle is not one for control over the law, so much as a fight for hearts and minds. Overturning Roe, in this paradigm, would be a foregone conclusion once society changes enough that it regards abortion as inherently immoral given secular premises, rather than religious. I make quite a few assumptions in this paragraph, but I think that it’s likely accurate in the broad strokes.
I’m not looking for an argument so much as maybe some references to authoritative magisterium on this specific topic, rather than to the morality of abortion broadly. I’ve been Googling, but can’t find any guidance. Unfortunately, I think that I’m too new of a user to post in the “Ask an Apologist” category.
Thanks in advance for your help!