There has been a majority of Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republicans presidents who ran on a Pro-Life platform since 1991, when George H. W. Bush’s second nomination, Clarence Thomas, was confirmed and became the fifth such appointment, i.e., the fifth appointment by Reagan and Bush. At that point, fully eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, although three were appointed by Republican presidents prior to the Republican party adding an anti-legalized abortion plank to its platform in 1980. Thus, for 29 years there have been a majority of “Pro-Life” Justices on the Supreme Court, yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Why is that? Republicans will respond that abortion is a states’ rights issue and changes have been made in various states restricting access to legal abortions. And, indeed, many Republican-controlled states have adopted laws restricting access to legalized abortion, both overtly by restricting when during pregnancy abortions can be performed and indirectly by restricting who can get abortions, e.g., requiring parental consent for minors or consent from the father, where abortions can be performed, and increasing the complexity of getting an abortion, e.g., requiring waiting periods and requiring the mother to have an ultrasound performed prior to an abortion. But most of these restrictions have been struck down by the Supreme Court or by lower courts with the Supreme Court declining to intervene.
With the passing of RBG, “Pro-Life” Republican voters feel as though their consistent support for “Pro-Life” candidates will pay off. But shouldn’t it have already paid off by now? Shouldn’t it have paid off at some point in the past 29 years? Shouldn’t they feel some shame that the rationale for not considering Obama’s 2016 nominee, in April, is thrown aside in September of 2020? Shouldn’t they feel some shame for supporting candidates whose actual record on supporting life is uniformly terrible? Will getting a 6–3 majority on the Supreme Court actually pay off? Or will these “Pro-Life” justices simply find a way to flip two votes instead of one to preserve Roe v. Wade? Time will tell.
The reason I use the term anti-legalized abortion and put the term “Pro-Life” in quotes is that, strictly speaking, the Republican party is not pro-life on pretty much every issue other than legalized abortion. Their immigration policies are not pro-life. Separating children from parents and putting those seeking asylum from dangerous situations in cages is not pro-life. Their racial policies, coddling white supremacist groups, is not pro-life. Their healthcare policies, and referring to their approach to healthcare as a policy is being very generous, is not pro-life. Removing access to health insurance and protections from preexisting conditions is not pro-life.