Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

April 29, 2005

Overturning Roe

In passing, yesterday, I read somewhere where someone said something about overturning Roe v. Wade would harm the GOP because it would throw the law squarely into the other extreme. I had forgotten where, but finally found that I'd misread the comment in a tidy little OpEd piece James Taranto did last year.

By mostly removing the issue from the democratic process, Roe created the current polarization over abortion, in which both parties are officially committed to extreme positions. The Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment, which would presumably ban all or most abortions, while the Democratic platform backs "a woman's right to choose . . . regardless of her ability to pay"--meaning abortion on demand, at taxpayer expense.

Opinion polls consistently show that only a small proportion of Americans favor either of these extremes. But because Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions take off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy, Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.

The Human Life Amendment Taranto finds so extreme has no official wording, and is for all intents and purposes just a concept, but the consistency seems to be in the following idea “The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency.” It doesn't sound extreme at all to me, but then Taranto is one of those who floats in the murky area between pro-life and pro-choice, finding abortion appalling, but also unwilling to accept that the life of an unborn child is always more important that inconveniencing whoever happens to be carrying that child.

In searching for the article, though I found quite a bit of interesting tid-bits.

I stumbled across an amusing account by Les Kinsolving of presidential press secretary Scott McClellan doing everything he could short of standing on his head to avoid answering the question, “Does the President support overturning Roe v. Wade?”

I even found one pro-choice Liberal who argues that overturning Roe would be a good thing.

I also found an interesting piece by Thomas Jipping explaining just how hard overturning Roe would be:

A lot of things have to happen before Roe v. Wade will be reversed. Two pro-Roe justices have to retire; they do not include Chief Justice Rehnquist, the odds-on favorite for the first departure. Then, the right individuals must be nominated to take their place, whose judicial philosophy not only recognizes that Roe was wrongly decided in 1973, but that this requires reversing it today. Then, those nominees must be confirmed in the Senate where a majority of its members are pro-abortion.

Then, a case must come to the Court which unavoidably raises the issue of Roe's continued viability (no reproductive pun intended). Then, at least four justices must vote to consider not only that case, but that issue. Unless two lower courts have decided the same issue different ways, the Supremes won't step in at all. Then, at least five justices must decide that case, and that issue, the right way. That's a bunch of planets that must line up for Roe to be in any danger, and it will be years before that happens.

It is a common myth, allowed to continue by the MSM that overturning Roe would make abortion immediately illegal all over the US. Pro-choice propagandists expand the myth and predict the wholesale slaughter of women dying in “back alley abortions” even though such deaths were rare even before Roe, as well a modern medical techniques. But when you've already rationalized the murder of innocent babies, what's a lie or two?

The Human Life Amendment would void Roe, shortcutting the obstacle course Jipping describes. But the HLA itself doesn't seem all that close to becoming reality. Except that with Liberal abusing the judicial system to impose their view, more and more of the voting public are warming up to the idea of Constitutional Amendments. A Defense of Marriage Amendment seems inevitable, and with the recent murder of Terri Schiavo and the attempted murders of Mae Magouirk and Clara Martinez the HLA seems even more necessary than before.

In The Prince, Machiavelli pointed out that those who gained power by unscrupulous means gained it fast, but had trouble maintaining it. Those who gained power through honest means gained it slowly, but maintained it longer. (By pointing out those who gained power dishonestly yet maintained it honestly were more effective, he earned the ire of self-righteous pseudo-moralists ever since) Liberals have gain the upper hand by dishonest means: misusing the courts. But as with most people they fail to truly comprehend what they erroneously call Machiavellianism (while practicing the very thing they pretend to condemn). Machiavelli never taught “the ends justify the means” (which would be a poorly crafted way of saying “the ends justify any means”) Machiavelli simply offered his scientific observations of the politics of his era, and left the moral choices to others.

But, I guess it's a good thing Liberal don't get Machiavelli, because they've had power for some time, and foolishly continued their unethical tactics, and are now losing it. The more they fight to maintain the status quo of judicial tyranny, the easier it will be to end it.

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 29, 2005 02:17 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1050

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Overturning Roe:

» ADL demands apology from Durbin from Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis)
From WorldNetDaily: The Anti-Defamation League has called on Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin to apologize for comparing alleged abuses at Guantanamo... [Read More]

Tracked on June 18, 2005 08:09 AM

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.