Vengeance: the blood you shed must be compensated with your own blood, or that of those you hold most dear. Traditionally, deaths were avenged in war to honor the fallen and punish their slayer. In the modern day, where polarization exists to such a degree that the neologism of “political warfare” turns debate into a battlefield, policies and rights have assumed the role of bloodshed in traditional warfare. This dynamic is evident in the rhetoric of Republican and right-wing politicians following the reversal of Roe V. Wade and installation of Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022.
Conservatives saw Roe as a sort of death for American ideals, and thus Dobbs was seen as avenging that death.
A significant portion of the rhetoric surrounding the right-wing response to Dobbs focused on the idea that Roe had robbed the states of their rights, an interesting deviation from typical pro-life rhetoric that focuses on the sanctity of life. Conservatives saw Roe as a sort of death for American ideals, and thus Dobbs was seen as avenging that death. Since Dobbs returned the choice to the states, many perceived it as a return to the fundamental American ideal of state power and sovereignty. Kentucky’s Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron summed it up concisely: “Today is a day that many have hoped for — the issue of abortion has been returned to the people and to the states, where it belongs.” Similarly, Mitch McConnell, Republican senator from Kentucky, stated that “Millions of Americans have spent half a century praying, marching, and working toward today’s historic victories for the rule of law.” Their comments apply this vengeance to a broad American audience as well as exemplify a common Red state response through Kentucky. When Dobbs returned abortion policy to the states’ discretion, Kentucky, along with 12 other states, automatically enacted a trigger ban made enforceable by Dobbs. Many others passed abortion-limiting policies in response to the holding. All but 9 states have implemented some sort of gestational limit for abortion post-Dobbs, ranging from 6 to 22 weeks post Last Menstrual Period.
Dobbs’ rhetoric almost paints parenthood as a communal, nation-wide phenomenon by describing the protection of fetal life as the responsibility of all Americans.
Alternatively, some reactions described Dobbs as the correction of a cruel mistake. For instance, Representative Jack Bergman of Michigan described Dobbs as ending “decades of bad precedent;” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul described the decision as “a monumental step to not only protect life but also for the court to finally correct the mistake it made.” Other representatives, including Jack Bergman and Tracey Mann, used rhetoric along the lines of “returning power back” to the states, the American people, etc., insinuating that Roe had erroneously stripped them of that power.
The other significant portion of responses to the Dobbs decision emphasized avenging what might be the view most proximate to traditional warfare: avenging the unlived lives of fetuses aborted under Roe’s more lenient guidelines. In traditional warfare, deaths were avenged with other deaths; in American abortion politics, death (or, rather, the failure to gestate until birth) is avenged through the death of policy and rights. The view of fetuses as babies supports a connotation of innocence and helplessness, further fueling the need for vengeance. The Republican House minority leader at the time, Kevin McCarthy, wrote: “Every unborn child is precious, extraordinary, and worthy of protection. I applaud this historic ruling, which will save countless innocent lives,” displaying evident appeals to the supposed qualities of innocence and helplessness in unborn fetuses.
As policy takes the place of bloodshed, the systematic deprivation of rights becomes an increasingly personal phenomenon, forging an unending and insatiable cycle.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s majority decision stated that abortion “destroys what Roe termed ‘potential life’ and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being,” going on to describe that destruction as deprivation of a person’s life and liberty. The connotative differences between “potential life” and “unborn human being,” one being more focused on loss and the other more scientific and unemotional, are used to contrast pro-choice and pro-life activism. The Court held that Americans of “good faith instead would prioritize the interests in protecting fetal life.” Not only is there an obvious implication that one must be pro-life to act in “good faith,” Dobbs’ rhetoric almost paints parenthood as a communal, nation-wide phenomenon by describing the protection of fetal life as the responsibility of all Americans.
There was an interesting emphasis seen in the quantity of responses that explicitly focused on the infringement of rights rather than the concept of a lost life in aborted fetuses. This stands in contrast to traditional pro-life rhetoric that advocates for the potential of each unborn person. Strikingly, in reacting to Dobbs, there was practically no mention of mothers or parents, deviating from conventional pro-choice rhetoric. A political atmosphere built upon the frail foundation of eye-for-an-eye justice will collapse violently. As policy takes the place of bloodshed, the systematic deprivation of rights becomes an increasingly personal phenomenon, forging an unending and insatiable cycle.
Ada Gibson ‘29 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at a.e.gibson@wustl.edu.