It already looks pretty grim...anti-abortion activists have been eroding abortion rights and restricting access at the state level for a long time now - a shift at the Supreme Court would make things even worse.
I remember Sandra Day O'Connor being the voice of reason when the Senate tried to ban 'partial-birth' abortions (a non-medical term) without making exception for the life and health of the mother
(really a deceptive issue anyway, considering late-term abortions are already illegal
except in cases where the life or health of the mother are at risk - IMO they were just trying to use it as a way to make the point that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of an existing, already-born woman.) Her voice of reason will soon be gone.
It's very sad - even my devoutly Catholic grandmother, who used to be a nurse, thinks it's wrong to make abortion illegal. She understands the difference between an ideal and reality, and remembers having to deal with the consequences in her hospital - young women dying or suffering internal damage due to desperate attempts at back-alley or home abortions, using unsterile or improvised tools, or taking poisons rumored to be abortifacients.
Isn't anyone impressed by the irony here? A president coming from a party that supposedly champions states' rights and personal freedoms has made interfering in personal medical decisions a government priority!
And while claiming to be anti-abortion, his government is busy trying to restrict access to the very things that would reduce the need for abortions - birth control, the morning after pill, and SEX EDUCATION.
It's not just about abortion, it's about reproductive freedom as a whole, returning women to their proper status as full-time child producers - more Christian souls for the church, more fodder for the coming Holy War! (Even though I am Christian, I completely disagree with this interpretation - abuse in His name)
I think one of the main reasons that we've reached this point is that radicals have taken full advantage of the fact that no-one really wants to be labelled as 'pro-abortion'. The image of a baby is a powerful one, and it's been fully exploited, completely overriding the complex issues around abortion and concerns for the mother. An animal suffering pregnancy complications gets more consideration in a radical society than a pregnant mother, whose baby must be saved at all costs - never mind that the mother will suffer, the husband may be widowed, and existing children motherless. An animal's fetus is usually disposed of to save the life and health of the existing breeding stock.
I certainly think abortion should be a last resort - people should above all exercise restraint, and use birth control. But birth control can fail (drug interactions, which can also cause severe birth defects, condoms break, etc.), rape happens, girls are molested, insecure women and young girls are pressured into sex, pregnancies occur in abusive relationships, women are afraid of losing their jobs and becoming homeless if they get pregnant, pregnancy complications occur that threaten the health of the mother, and on and on.
Even though a majority of people may believe abortion should ultimately be a personal and medical decision, it's difficult to stand up in front of your community and say you're pro-choice, risking immediate condemnation and labeling as a "baby-killer" by the 'holy warriors'. And that reluctance has been cleverly exploited, to the detriment of women's health and rights in our country today.
OK, I'm off the soapbox.