One of the most common complaints directed at pro-lifers is that they are trying to overturn a Supreme Court decision that is popular with the American public. In one respect, this is a fair point. Roughly sixty percent of the country, when asked, says that they would not support overturning Roe. At the same time, roughly 2/3 of people say they would prefer the type of ‘stricter limits’ on abortion that are barred by Roe and Casey.
Noting this disconnect, Peter Suderman recently suggested that pro-lifers should focus on framing Roe as a barrier to compromise on abortion.
From the pro-life perspective, polling is beside the point; a moral evil does not become less objectionable by being popular. Nevertheless, in the U.S. it is necessary to appeal to the mushy (if often intellectually incoherent) middle. It seems to me that framing Roe as a barrier to compromise has two major benefits. The first is that it would help educate voters, to the extent possible, about what Roe/Casey really means. The second is that it might help highlight the fact that support for the Roe/Casey regime (in practice) is a minority position, which is hard to appreciate at times because it is the status quo. Any thoughts?