One difficulty with Roe v Wade was that it mightily over-extended the powers of the federal government and judiciary. Nowhere does anything remotely like a right to abortion appear in the Constitution.
Not so long ago, Republicans called Democrats the ‘party of abortion’ as an insult, or a pre-election attack line. Now, it is the Republicans, as the party against abortion, who are losing. This is a grim reality for Americans who believe that the unborn deserve protection.
Last week, in a massive victory for the pro-life cause, the state Supreme Court of Georgia struck down a lower court’s decision, ruling that the state’s heartbeat law is constitutional—meaning it upheld the six-week abortion ban that was in legislation limbo for about four years now.
Three states have already passed pro-abortion constitutional amendments after the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization” decision.
At least one law clerk is among those suspected of leaking the draft abortion ruling in May
The Inflation Reduction Act gave Democrats a chance to fund abortion. They didn’t even try. They’ve given voters good reason to doubt they’re serious.
There may be no better indication of the jurisprudential soundness of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization than the intellectual poverty of the response from its opponents.
The reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been predictably vitriolic and often full of distortions. The Justices didn’t ban abortion; they said there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to the states to decide. The majority also did not set up other rights to disappear; they explicitly said abortion is unique.
The nation when Roe v. Wade was enacted was very different than the nation today. This is why setting laws and policies to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone are so difficult.
When lawyer Sarah Weddington stood up in the Supreme Court on Oct. 11, 1972, to present the pro-abortion argument in the case of Roe v. Wade, she was legalistically careful in the language she used to describe whom exactly an abortion aborted.
She avoided normal human terms like “unborn child” or “baby” — and, most importantly, “person.”
Another Devil’s advocate © 2021. All rights reserved.
