4.2.12 WC: 191694 States because the channels of democracy had been blocked by malapportioned legislatures and other perversions of the democratic process. Over a period of years, the Supreme Court placed its moral imprimatur on desegregation and eventually unblocked these channels of democracy. It worked — not perfectly, but perfection is rarely possible in a heterogeneous and divided democracy. A similar process is today underway with regard to equality for gays. Abortion is different. The Supreme Court’s decision, now more half a century old, changed few minds on this issue, because those who believe that abortion — or certain kinds of abortion — is tantamount to murder are not like those who believed that segregation was right. The former believe that they occupy the moral high ground. And they do, if their underlying premise — that a fetus is a human being — is correct. No rational argument, whether made by philosophers or Supreme Court justices, will ever disprove the truth of that a priori premise. Nor will experience alter it, unlike views concerning segregation or gay rights which have been markedly changed by experience. Moreover, the nation was — and remains — closely divided about the morality of abortion, both in the abstract and under various circumstances. Advocates of a woman’s right to choose abortion could have organized politically to win that right (at least for most women under most circumstances) in the elected branches of government. According to the ACLU: Between 1967 and 1971, under mounting pressure from the women’s rights movement, 17 states decriminalized abortion. Public opinion also shifted during this period. In 1968, only 15 percent of Americans favored legal abortions; by 1972, 64 percent did. When the Court announced its landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, it was marching in step with public opinion. But it is not the proper role of the Supreme Court to march “in step” with public opinion. That is the role