James Bopp, June 2011 (Credit: Gage Skidmore) |
After Roe tells the story of how
lawyers like Bopp transformed the movement they represented. In particular,
over the course of the 1970s, attorneys began to question the wisdom of prioritizing
a constitutional amendment. Bopp and his colleagues saw themselves as realists,
and in the short term, they believed that the antiabortion movement needed
victories to survive.
These attorneys crafted
an incremental attack on Roe that
served several purposes. First, by convincing the Court to uphold regulations
that were theoretically compatible with Roe,
incrementalists limited abortion access and reduce the number of procedures
performed across the country. Second, an incremental attack energized
demoralized constituents and convinced politicians that the pro-life movement
was a force to be reckoned with. Finally, incrementalists set the stage for the
eventual overruling of Roe. Over
time, as the Court narrowed abortion rights, incrementalists believed that it
would be far easier to convince the justices to get rid of the 1973 decision
altogether.
The
incrementalists’ story raises interesting questions about what it meant for
lawyers to represent unborn children. How did lawyers like Bopp define their
role in the larger movement? Did they believe that their professional status or
expertise made them more qualified to create a strategy for the larger
movement? How did antiabortion lawyers’ understanding of themselves and their
professional role change in the following decades?
It
is striking how much lawyers’ influence in the antiabortion movement grew over
time. When pro-life groups first formed across the country, they often rejected traditional hierarchies of gender and class, placing homemakers in positions of
power. Influence often came with past success. Antiabortion activists who had defeated
efforts to repeal or reform abortion bans in the 1960s and early 1970s gained
credibility and power. These advocates did not always or even often belong to
the movement’s elite wing.
By the 1980s, however,
the movement had once again invested in the courts, and lawyers held positions
of power across leading organizations. This shift—and how it affected pro-life
lawyers’ identities—deserves further study. Legal historians often ask us to
think about the ways in which attorneys sometimes limit the claims of the
movements they represent. As the evolution of lawyers’ role in the antiabortion
movement suggests, we have more to learn about whether this story often applies
to movements that we identify with the Right.