Letter: Roe v. Wade debate hearkens to the Prohibition era
“The government has no business telling me what to do with my own body.” “It’s a lifestyle choice.” “It”s a personal decision.” “It is not a decision in which the government should get involved.” “Your right to party ends when it threatens another person’s right to live.” No, these could be statements about Roe v. Wade. But the same statements were likely made in reaction to the 18th Amendment of 1919 that outlawed alcohol production, sale, and consumption in the U.S. and its territories. This amendment was repealed by the 23rd Amendment in 1933.
The passage of the 18th Amendment occurred in a political environment resembling the current one surrounding abortion. Opinion and sentiment divided two groups who were just as intractable in their positions, for or against prohibition, as the pro-life and pro-choice groups of today with regard to abortion. One group thought drinking added to the enjoyment of life and need not be prohibited outright. The other group saw drinking as an unnecessary, if not evil practice, that undeniably had bad consequences when abused, and should be prohibited outright.
Just as the Eighteenth Amendment led to violence (Al Capone), for some creeds the Roe v. Wade decision led to violence against the the unborn. Just as the Prohibition Amendment had to be overturned to end the violence it caused, Roe v. Wade had to be overturned to allow for the prohibition of violence against the unborn in the states where the majority of citizens cannot countenance such perceived violence.
The issue demonstrates the genius of our system. After all, it’s not that far to Wendover, and just how many abortions do you need?
David Ostler
Ogden