When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, I became a single-issue voter overnight. How could anything matter more than my right of choice over my own body? But, I soon realized that, in California, my right to abortion was still the same – legal and protected. In fact, in November, the Constitution of California was amended to explicitly protect the right to abortion – the third state to do so. But, the very idea that the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, made my stomach churn. It still makes me angry, sad, defeated, enraged – all other issues fade philosophically. If other, especially poorer or otherwise disadvantaged, women cannot access abortion, that’s where I philosophically draw the line, even though my personal interest (right to abortion) is protected.
But, I’ve lately been thinking – what about other issues that are less important for me philosophically, but more impactful practically? For e.g. immigration – hypothetically, if one party were anti-abortion but pro-legal, skilled immigration, while the other was pro-abortion but anti immigration reform, who should I vote for? Philosophically, I care much more about a woman’s right to choice and abortion, but my abortion right is protected by my state, irrespective of either party. Practically, I benefit from a pro legal immigration regime – it has a life-changing impact.
On one hand, I think about “if you don’t stand up for your principles when they are tested, they aren’t truly your principles”. I can philosophically care all I want about abortion but when a real tradeoff needs to be made, if I don’t stand up for it, that makes me a hypocrite. On the other hand, I think about all the women who I seek to be an ally to, who vote against other topics that impact my life (immigration) and topics I care about (e.g. free speech, gun control)?
Maybe, I could resolve this by saying, “I care first about my personal right to abortion, then immigration reform that will personally impact me, then everyone else’s right to abortion, then everything else.” But this is such a slippery slope – a line drawing exercise, maybe even a “convenient cop out”.
The core questions are: 1) what is the price I would personally pay to uphold my philosophical principles, even though them not being upheld has no direct impact on me? 2) how do I resolve “what about everyone whose interests I am protecting by voting philosophically (e.g. women in non-abortion-supporting states), but they themselves vote for their interests (eg anti immigration) that are in direct opposition to mine? ” (Sorry that is a very convoluted statement but i couldn’t find a more graceful way of saying it – will update if i do).
Lastly, I think about this famous poem “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me”. If, today, I don’t stand up against the anti-abortion regime, tomorrow they could come for me (e.g. overruling states). I like to think that I stand by my principles in hard times – but this is a tough thought experiment, and one I’ve been unable to fully resolve.
I welcome ideas and thoughts.
Ipshita Agarwal 