Roe v. Wade Is History, but the Abortion Debate Reveals Rot at America's Center
This week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling overdue by some five decades, striking down Roe v. Wade (1973) and its constitutionally unsubstantiated "right to abortion." Writing for the 6-3 majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito stated, "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision ... It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."
Despite the media's wailing and gnashing of teeth, and despite Democrats' impotent roars of rage, the reality is that the Supreme Court decision was not extreme in any way. It did not reflect the most ardent desires of pro-lifers. It did not, for example, declare a right to life applicable to unborn children under the 14th Amendment's guarantee against the removal of "life, liberty or property, without due process of law." Nor did the decision follow the legally correct advice of Justice Clarence Thomas, who recommended trashing the Supreme Court doctrine of "substantive due process," a persistently and irritatingly vague rubric that generally acts as a pretext for courts to pursue their favored public policy objectives. The decision did not even suggest that the federal Congress had the power to regulate abortion in place of state laws.
Yet Democrats and the media seem firmly convinced that the re-animation of abortion as a state law issue will somehow translate into 2022 electoral victory. There is little evidence to this effect: State laws generally reflect the opinions of those who live in those states, and the most ardent abortion defenders tend to reside in heavily blue areas where abortion will be freely available. It's hard to believe that Manhattan residents are going to show up to the polls en masse to vote on Alabama's abortion policy -- and even if they did, it would make no difference in House or Senate elections in Ohio.
[i]Dems made the issue political. They have lost biggly, and will again in November.[/i]
Despite the media's wailing and gnashing of teeth, and despite Democrats' impotent roars of rage, the reality is that the Supreme Court decision was not extreme in any way. It did not reflect the most ardent desires of pro-lifers. It did not, for example, declare a right to life applicable to unborn children under the 14th Amendment's guarantee against the removal of "life, liberty or property, without due process of law." Nor did the decision follow the legally correct advice of Justice Clarence Thomas, who recommended trashing the Supreme Court doctrine of "substantive due process," a persistently and irritatingly vague rubric that generally acts as a pretext for courts to pursue their favored public policy objectives. The decision did not even suggest that the federal Congress had the power to regulate abortion in place of state laws.
Yet Democrats and the media seem firmly convinced that the re-animation of abortion as a state law issue will somehow translate into 2022 electoral victory. There is little evidence to this effect: State laws generally reflect the opinions of those who live in those states, and the most ardent abortion defenders tend to reside in heavily blue areas where abortion will be freely available. It's hard to believe that Manhattan residents are going to show up to the polls en masse to vote on Alabama's abortion policy -- and even if they did, it would make no difference in House or Senate elections in Ohio.
[i]Dems made the issue political. They have lost biggly, and will again in November.[/i]
