How Would a "Roe v Wade" in 1920s Affect American Politics?

The U.S. Supreme Court had given its support for people affecting the gene pool through artificial means as early as the 1920s. However, this manifested as the eugenics movement in cases like Buck vs. Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell).

I know abortion and eugenics are two separate things, but I think if an abortion case came to the SCOTUS at this time, they would likely vote in favor of legalizing it nationwide for the same reasons they supported eugenics.

With abortion legalized this early, how would this affect the anti-abortion movement? Would it just be accepted by now? Would this become a wedge issue for politicians as it is today?
 
The U.S. Supreme Court had given its support for people affecting the gene pool through artificial means as early as the 1920s. However, this manifested as the eugenics movement in cases like Buck vs. Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell).

I know abortion and eugenics are two separate things, but I think if an abortion case came to the SCOTUS at this time, they would likely vote in favor of legalizing it nationwide for the same reasons they supported eugenics.

With abortion legalized this early, how would this affect the anti-abortion movement? Would it just be accepted by now? Would this become a wedge issue for politicians as it is today?

It would probably go over even worse, particularly in immigrant areas. If pro-lifers can achieve a salami-thin majority in an era where not as many people listen to their priest or minister, imagine the outrage that would ensue in the 20's. Of course, this depends on how restrictive the immigration restrictions become. The more you lessen European immigration outside of Northern Europe sans Ireland, the more likely it'll be institutionalized quicker.
 
You just don't have the Supreme Court precedents at this point for the application of substantive due process to personal decision-making to establish anything like a Roe v. Wade. Really, practically speaking, you can't have Roe without Griswold v. Connecticut.

There is substantive due process in this era of Supreme Court jurisprudence, but it's used much more frequently to invalidate economic regulation believed to be too intrusive.

And culturally, you cannot really see a Roe v. Wade moment before the advent of feminism and the epochal changes in sexual morality post-war.

Ultimately, Roe v. Wade boils down to a balancing of interests between society's interest in future human life and a person's interest in controlling their body. There's a whole knotted intellectual and cultural history of how people came to think of these issues in this way, not to mention how it came to be seen as a matter of due process.
 
Top