Roe reversal and delaying the draft.

the recent start of a new Supreme Court session has prompted a flurry of questions about future decisions and, pending retirement of one or more judges, future appointments. According to a study conducted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, if the Supreme Court reversed its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, thirty states could brand abortion illegal within a year. The study, What If Roe Fell? found that more than 70 million women in more than half the country could lose their right to choose.

A federal reversal of Roe v. Wade wouldn't alone illegalize abortion in the United States but it would allow states to mandate abortion policy without the protection provided by the constitution. Since many states had abortion bans before Roe, these laws could be enforced soon after a Roe reversal. Alabama's abortion ban, having never been enjoined by the courts, could be enforced immediately. "The building blocks are already in place to recriminalize abortion," President of the Center for Reproductive Rights Nancy Northrop said. "In a relatively short period of time, women in more than half the country are in jeopardy of losing their right to choose."

What If Roe Fell? found that only twenty states would likely protect access to abortion. Ohio has no pre-Roe abortion ban on its books, but the state has no constitutional or statutory protection of abortion rights and both the governor and legislature are anti-choice, so rushed legislation banning abortion would likely be passed in Ohio.

The twenty-one states with the highest levels of risk are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The complete study is available on the Center for Reproductive Rights' website at www.crlp.org.

On October 5 the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives brought up a bill that would have reinstated the draft had it not been voted down almost unanimously, 402-2. Some Democrats complained that bringing up the bill was a political move by the GOP to alleviate concern about an issue seen as a liability for President Bush right before the election.

Republicans accused Democrats of spreading a rumor intended to scare draft-age voters into voting against the president, and the administration has vehemently denied any plan of re-establishing military conscription. According to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, "This campaign is a baseless, malevolent concoction of the Democratic Party and everyone in this chamber knows it."

But Representative Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who sponsored the bill, expressed outrage that the measure was called up for a vote without going through the legislative process first. He had introduced the bill to draw attention to the disproportionately large number of poor Americans and minorities serving voluntarily in combat zones. Now that the military has been stretched thin in its global pursuits, Rangel said he wanted the Armed Services Committee to review the bill so that the personnel needs of the military could be amply discussed.

"I am voting 'no' because my bill deserves serious consideration," Rangel stated, adding, "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill." With the insurgency in Iraq costing so many American lives, it's easy to understand why neither party would want to be on the side supporting a military draft.

Rachel Gillett is the editorial associate for the Humanist.