Overturning Roe v. Wade Would Repair a Supreme Injustice | National Review

Taking the ‘Choice’ out of ‘Pro-Choice’ | National Review


Abortion supporters and pro-life advocates demonstrate on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Washington, D.C., January 24, 2011. (Jim Young/Reuters)

Last night, the Supreme Court denied the request by Texas abortion clinics for emergency relief against the Texas Heartbeat Act. Even though the Left’s hysteria machine was immediately cranked to eleven, we have no idea what this means for the future of Roe v Wade. Hillary Clinton, and a number of others, falsely claimed that the Court had “gutted” Roe v. Wade “in middle of the night” when, in fact, the Court stressed that it did “not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claims” or the “constitutionality” of Texas’s law.

The histrionics are expected. For nearly 50 years, abortion advocates have been able to circumvent any consequential political debate over one of the most contentious and divisive issues in America life. Because of the breathtaking act of judicial supremacy, abortion advocates — many of the same people who refuse to accept the veracity of Citizens United or Heller, cases that reenforced rights explicitly laid out in the Constitution — simply claimed that the issue had been decided in perpetuity. Seven justices in 1973 had concocted an inalienable right from the ether.

There is a good possibility that initial political implications of the Court overturning Roe — which, I am skeptical will happen — would be detrimental for Republicans. Indeed, I’ve noticed that many people on social media — so perhaps this is not indicative of the larger American public, though I fear it is — seem to be under the impression that overturning Roe means the end of abortion. It’s unlikely much would change on the ground. Polls find that most Americans believe abortion should be legal. But most also believe in limitations. Some states, the ones that already have few clinics, would likely pass twelve- or 20-week bans or enact stricter enforcement of late-term-abortion bans, while others would surely adopt the Democrats’ preferred position: no restrictions whatsoever. Elizabeth Warren, ranting about the Court last night, demanded that Congress pass its own version Roe v. Wade. I’d opposed to such a law because of its barbaric nature, but whatever the outcome, laws, not judges, should govern abortion.

Roe stripped Americans of the ability to find any compromise on the issue. It stripped them of the ability to construct laws that accounted for evolving technological or scientific understanding. It stripped them of any real debate. Democrats are happy to throw individual rights to the vagaries of “democracy.” Why not abortion — a procedure that isn’t even hinted at anywhere in the Constitution?





Original source

#Overturning #Roe #Wade #Repair #Supreme #Injustice #National #Review

About the Author

Tony Beasley
Tony Beasley writes for the Local News, US and the World Section of ANH.