Tables Turn at 2001 Roe v. Wade Anniversary
North Texas Daily, 1/01

All was quiet on the free speech front.

Eagles for Life, an anti-abortion organization, reserved the Free Speech Area to lament the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Dressed in black and wielding some catchy protest signs, they passed out literature, buttons and bumper stickers in support of a movement to raise support for the reversal of the 1973 Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion nationwide.

I was among them. And I was surprised at both the lack of controversy and at how many students were not familiar with the landmark case.

MY POSITION

To make my position clear, I don’t believe the federal government should protect a horrendous procedure such as abortion.

So does this mean that I would support federal legislation to make abortion illegal, if Roe v. Wade is reversed? Probably not. Opposing federal involvement in this issue places me in the minority in pro-life circles.

Issues like abortion are best handled at the local level. By saying this, I alienate my conservative friends who want to amend the Constitution to make abortion illegal, and irritate my liberal friends who also want to use the government to get their way.

Reversing Roe v. Wade is not a hot-button issue (yet). Shout “Abortion is sin” or “Protect a woman’s right to choose” and you’ll receive cheers and jeers. But if you hold up a poster reading, “Reverse Roe,” the audience is forced to think before they react vocally.

Thus, I believe, Tuesday’s event was much quieter than the Roe v. Wade anniversaries of the past. There were times I expected a lone tumbleweed to come skipping across Ave. A.

THE OPPOSITION

I can recall only two detractors. One of which became angry at me for being male and participating in an abortion issue demonstration. “You shouldn’t even be here,” she shouted between bursts of profanity.

I defended my right to comment on the issue, regardless of gender. Christa Circelli, former EFL president and very much a woman, handled the rest of the episode fairly well.

Another naysayer came by and said, “Why are you even here? Roe is an old case, and you all look like a bunch of dumb asses for wanting to reverse it, especially with the political science department [in Wooten Hall] so close.”

I wanted to talk to him about this and see if he had a point. I was sure that Roe v. Wade could be reversed anyway.

He is partially right. There has been a plethora of legislation, both state and federal, and plenty of subsequent court decisions that defined the parameters of the right to abortion.

Charles Bierbauer, a CNN Washington correspondent, wrote during the 2000 presidential campaign reversing Roe v. Wade is a consideration among lawmakers. He quoted president Clinton on a campaign stop for Al Gore, "We're just a vote or two away from reversing Roe v. Wade." Clinton was referring to the possibility of now-president Bush appointing pro-life Supreme Court Justices if a vacancy occurred on the bench.

Reversing Roe v. Wade was also an issue in several other campaigns of interest, and is also a platform principle in the Republican Party.

PEACEFUL PROTESTING

All things considered, it was a peaceful and reverent demonstration, free of the shouting and bickering typical of an abortion-related activity. Most passers-by, even known abortion defenders, were cordial and respectful.

Members of EFL gathered for a prayer session before our time expired.

I can only hope that future events can be handled in such a collegiate manner— calm and scholarly, with a healthy amount of respect between the demonstrators and the audience.

More information about Eagles for Life can be obtained at orgs.unt.edu/efl