Missed Chances and New Directions

Abortion rights have long been a battleground in U.S. politics, often serving as a tool to rally voters rather than an issue of legislative focus. Despite having control of both the White House and Congress during Obama’s presidency, Democrats didn’t codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. While this is often framed as a “missed opportunity,” a more fitting term might be a “missed chance.” This wasn’t simply an overlooked legislative item—it was a calculated decision to keep abortion rights as a threat to energize voters rather than risk political capital.

Democratic politicians frequently used Roe as a rallying cry to mobilize their base, warning that a conservative Supreme Court could overturn it, which ultimately happened in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Now, the political conversation has flipped, with some, like Vice President Kamala Harris, promising to restore Roe. Yet this promise faces constitutional and political hurdles, leaving voters questioning whether the focus is on resolving the issue or using it again as a tactic for future elections.

A Strategic Decision to Leave Roe Vulnerable

Under Obama, Democrats had control of both the House and Senate, yet no major legislative effort was made to secure abortion rights at the federal level. Many politicians may have believed the Supreme Court would protect Roe, or perhaps more cynically, they knew that the threat of overturning it was politically useful. After all, the specter of losing abortion rights motivated voter turnout, especially in swing elections. Legal minds like Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized the fragility of Roe. She criticized the decision, not for its outcome, but for its reasoning, stating, “Roe ventured too far” and was “not securely grounded” in the Constitution. Her concerns that it would eventually be overturned proved prescient.

The Trump Administration’s Role in Abortion Policy

While the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe have been framed as setbacks by many, it’s important to acknowledge a different perspective: the decision to return abortion regulation to the states may have made abortion rights more secure in the long run. Under federal control, as sure as one administration could enshrine Roe, another could outlaw abortion altogether. In fact, Donald Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court were instrumental in making sure the issue returned to the states. Trump’s role in reshaping the court is often criticized by pro-choice advocates, but it also removed the federal government’s ability to regulate abortion nationwide.

With the decision now in the hands of the states, each can shape its own laws according to the will of its people. This allows for a diverse set of policies to emerge, reflecting regional values, but also protects abortion rights in states that choose to keep them. Federal action could still create a law—either protecting or banning abortion nationally—but with the decentralized approach, citizens have more influence over their state governments than the far-removed federal structure. For pro-life advocates, it’s a chance to pass restrictions in conservative states; for pro-choice supporters, it keeps abortion legal in places like California and New York.

Erosion of Public Trust

The cyclical use of abortion as a campaign tactic, without real legislative follow-through, has eroded public trust in politicians. Voters grow weary of being mobilized with promises only to see little action. This issue of trust extends beyond abortion—immigration reform, health care, and student loan debt relief have all followed similar patterns. Grand campaign promises often lead to little substantive change. In the case of abortion, voters have been continually told that their rights are in jeopardy, but when the opportunity to pass meaningful legislation arises, politicians seem to step back, preserving the issue for the next election cycle.

This tactic raises ethical questions: are voters being manipulated? And at what point does constant fearmongering lead to apathy? After all, how long can voters be motivated by the same warnings if no real progress is made?

A New Era of State-Level Control

The Dobbs decision may mark the start of a new era for abortion rights—one where state-level debates replace national gridlock. Legal scholar Robert P. George praised this shift, stating that returning the decision to the states allows for democratic deliberation closest to the people. In a nation as diverse as the United States, allowing each state to craft its own laws seems to respect the values of federalism, where local governments are given more power to address their populations’ needs.

Of course, this approach creates its own complexities. States now have widely differing abortion laws, from expansive access to near-total bans. But the decentralization of the issue means that the right to legislate on abortion is closer to the voters, offering citizens a more direct path to influence policy through lobbying, activism, and elections.

Conclusion: Real Progress or More Political Theater?

The promise to bring back Roe feels like a continuation of the same political strategy that has left abortion rights in limbo for decades. While politicians once used the threat of losing Roe to rally voters, they now reverse course, promising to restore it. But the constitutional challenges make such promises feel more like theater than reality.

By returning the issue to the states, the Supreme Court has arguably made abortion policy more stable, insulating it from federal swings between pro-choice and pro-life presidents. Each state can now set its own course, ensuring that the democratic process, rather than federal overreach, decides the future of abortion rights. For voters who care about this issue, the next steps lie in state legislatures, not Congress. This shift may be what finally removes abortion from the national political stage and brings it back to the hands of the people.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt)

#fyivt #roevwade #abortionrights #trump #supremecourt #rbg #kamala