A Strong Argument in Favor of the South Dakota Abortion Ban
The best argument that I've seen yet in favor of the South Dakota abortion ban (and similar laws being considered in other states) comes from Donald R. McClarey, commenting over at Amy Welborn's blog:
I support the South Dakota law. I hope many states will pass such laws. The Supreme Court is not an institution sealed in a cocoon, with jurists as secular clerics disinterestedly serving the Law. Justices are keenly aware of the environment in which they make their decisions. These laws will send a clear message to the court that Roe will never be settled law. At worst, Roe will be reaffirmed in a 5-4 decision which will further delegitimize it; at best, some pro-abort justice will realize that further attempts to shore up Roe are futile in the long term, that the damage that Roe is doing to the reputation of the Court increases every day, and that it is time to return this issue to the People.(emphasis added)
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:04 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
At best it could convince Roberts and Alito not to invoke stare decisis, assuming they would be tempted to do so. It is already abundantly clear that abortion is a living issue even without a few states passing bans: just look at every single presidential race since 1980. Ultimately I still think the reinforcement of the obvious to Our Robed Masters isn't nearly worth reaffirming Roe.
Besides, why couldn't we send the same message in two freaking years when the balance of the court might be 4-2-3 or 3-2-4 instead of 5-2-2 (proRoe-antiRoe-unknown)?
Note that I am talking more to Donald, even though he isn't here, than to you, Jay, since you didn't fully endorse his comment.
Besides, why couldn't we send the same message in two freaking years
I have an average of 1.5 million reasons per year why not.
Amen Paul!!
I have an average of 1.5 million reasons per year why not.
So you'd sacrifice 15 million (since reaffirming Roe will probably mean it won't be revisited again for at least a decade — SCOTUS, even when it disposes of major precedent, doesn't like to change on a dime) in a hopeless attempt to save 3 million?
So you'd sacrifice 15 million (since reaffirming Roe will probably mean it won't be revisited again for at least a decade — SCOTUS, even when it disposes of major precedent, doesn't like to change on a dime) in a hopeless attempt to save 3 million?
The simple fact is, you don't know that this is the case.
I believe we are called to do all we can do, today, to end this evil. We are not promised a result, but we must make every effort.
We cannot, must not, simply wait until it appears that victory is assured. The price is too high.
Post a Comment
<< Home