I got a question.
Lots of American politicians talk about this pro-life / pro-choice - thingy. And the way I understood it, lots of Republicans are pro-life. But wasn't Bush the president for like the last 7 years and isn't he pro-life? And abortion is still legal. So what's the buzz about who is pro-life and pro-choice if abortion stays legal anyway? Did I miss something here?
The President has no power to enact laws, so he/she does nor really have any mechanism to declare abortion illegal all by himself. He would have to rally a lot of political support – in both houses of Congress, in the court system, and among the people – in order to prohibit abortion.
It is virtually impossible that this will happen. Any position a politician takes on the abortion issue is a no-win deal. The reason is that there are a few people who think abortion is simply murder and there are a few people who think there is no moral issue involved at all. But the vast majority of people can see merit on both sides of the argument and are unable to stake out a clear and unambiguous ethical position for themselves that can stand to every challenge. That is why politicians, when asked about abortion, usually just mumble something about how nice it would be in unwanted pregnancies didn’t occur in the first place.
Basically, they just wish the issue would go away because whatever position they took, they would end up making more enemies than friends.
One thing that the pro-life people might be able to accomplish, however, is to get the Roe versus Wade decision overturned. In this 1973 case a woman became pregnant as the result of rape, and she challenged the anti-abortion laws of the state of Texas (coincidently, the state that George Bush became governor of years later.) The U.S. Supreme Court (more left-leaning in the 1970s than it is now) ruled that the Texas law was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This was a victory for the pro-choice side, and the decision prevents any individual state or city from having its own local anti-abortion law.
But legally, the decision was on shaky ground. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the U.S. Civil War in order to grant the full privileges of citizenship to former slaves. It says,
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Court held, in a majority opinion written by the great civil rights jurist Thurgood Marshall, that the language “life, liberty and property” implied an “umbra” of other coincident rights, and the right to abortion fell among them.
(For what it’s worth, I think that was baloney – they just wanted to throw out the Texas law and that is how they managed to do it. It is not the responsibility of Court to decide whether a law is good or bad, only whether it violates the Constitution. The plain fact is, the Constitution is silent on abortion. My two cents.

)
Anyway, with a conservative majority on the court after several appointments by Republican presidents over the last 25 years, it is possible that the court might now review Roe versus Wade and come to a different conclusion. This would allow individual states to prohibit abortion, but would not comprise a national policy.
But I don’t think the court wants to touch the issue any more than the President or the Congress does.