On abortion and LGBT rights, states are becoming more powerful. Will there be a backlash?

Which level of government do you trust the most? According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted this spring, 66% of American adults have a “favorable” opinion of their local government (county, city or town), compared to 54% who say the same of their state government and only 32% who have positive sentiments towards the federal government. government. Does this mean that a reversal of Roe v. Wade, who would return the power to regulate abortion to the states, will be popular with American voters and Catholic voters in particular? Not necessarily.

Pew asked the same question in 2019, and the biggest change in the past three years has been a loosening of support for state government; favorable opinions still outweigh unfavorable opinions, but the ratio went from 59-40 to 54-45. It is perhaps no coincidence that state governments grew more powerful during this period, and a reversal of Roe would be just one example of this trend. After nearly a century of warnings about the “imperial presidency“and his growing power, we may read more about imperial governors such as Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is now making headlines in punish the disney company on LGBT issues and stop the special olympics to institute a Covid vaccine requirement.

Roe’s ending may not settle the question of which level of government is best placed to decide public policy.

In some ways, stronger state governments are a return to the norm. Compared to other major democracies, the United States has always granted more decision-making power to the level of government below the national capital. States largely develop their own policies on education, health care, and housing development, and suggestions that the national government should hold national elections have never gone very far (although the approach decentralized could lead to huge problems in 2024).

But the Roe decision in 1973 was part of a long-term move to transfer power to the national government. From 1932 to 1994, the Democratic Party generally controlled both houses of Congress, even when it did not hold the presidency, and the Supreme Court was a frequent ally in a movement to uphold constitutional rights (or create rights from scratch, Roe’s critics say) and create national standards for things like criminal trials, election procedures and the accommodation of religious beliefs.

The Roe decision in 1973 was part of a long-term move to transfer power to the national government.

This political arrangement has disappeared: Republican presidents have appointed most of the justices of the current Supreme Court, and the recent decline in popularity of the Democratic Party in rural areas puts it at a disadvantage in the Electoral College and the United States Senate, which reduces considerably its ability to define national policy. Meanwhile, Republicans have a power base in state legislatures, steadily gaining control even when they get fewer votes statewide. (Gerrymandering is a factor, but the concentration of Democratic voters in highly urban and geographically small areas is another. For every Democrat who wins an urban seat by 50 points, there can be two Republicans who win suburban or rural seats by 10 points each.) And Republicans want state governments to assert themselves.

The preference for policy-making at a lower level of government may sound familiar to Catholics. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity means that, as America Contributor Nathan Schneider once explained that “decisions should be made at the level of those affected by them, as locally as possible”. This makes sense in many areas of public policy: mayors should be able to fight crime in whatever way makes most sense for their communities (perhaps by funding youth sports leagues instead of buying more equipment military for police), and school districts should have some leeway in creating sex education programs (responding to local parent concerns rather than simply following a Washington model).

Abortion is not the only issue on which returning political power to states may not be as easy as it seems.

Subsidiarity and local policymaking also makes sense if your goal is to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, with the pro-life movement pursuing different strategies in different states to support women facing unexpected pregnancies and offer alternatives to abortion. But what if your goal is to end abortion almost entirely? What if another Catholic principle, solidarity with the unborn child, was more important than giving state governments the ability to set their own directions on such an important issue? Wouldn’t you always fight to end abortion in every state and not just yours, just as the pro-choice movement will always fight for legal abortion in every state?

Abortion is not the only issue on which returning political power to states may not be as easy as it seems. Republican-led legislatures in particular have already been enact laws that expand the powers of the state in various areas, imposing restrictions on LGBTQ content in schools and public libraries, transgender participation in sports, mention of critical race theory in classrooms, voting by mail and protest marches. At the same time that these states asserted their power against the federal government, many also limited the powers of the local government (the most reliable level in the Pew survey) by enacting “pre-emption lawsto stop cities and towns from regulating guns, setting minimum wages, or passing their own LGBTQ non-discrimination laws.

Even before a Roe overthrow, there can be a backlash against increasingly powerful state governments. And that backlash could unite activists on both sides of the political spectrum. LGBTQ activists and those claiming opposition to “gender ideology” may find it unacceptable that non-discrimination laws vary from state to state. Pro-choice activists who defend the rights of pregnant women and pro-life activists who defend the rights of the unborn child may find it intolerable to subject those rights to the whims of state legislators.

In other words, Roe’s ending may not settle the question of which level of government is best placed to decide public policy. It could instead leave the country more divided than ever.