Obscured by the polemics and theologizing, however, is the hard reality that abortion rates in the U.S., and legalized abortion, will not soon yield to restatements of the catechism or the notion that abortion is a violation of “natural law.” Such arguments have not yet proved persuasive to the American public, and minds are not likely to be changed by judicial fiat, even from the Supreme Court.
That means that abortion today is primarily a political challenge, and in that context Democrats have been embracing a more effective strategy than the GOP. In an interview with ABC last week, Mr. Obama wisely noted (a month after his “above my pay grade” gaffe) that the theological question was one “I don’t presume to be able to answer” for everyone else. “The better answer,” he said, “is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that’s unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.”
Mr. Obama’s argument has won some surprising converts, most notably the former Reagan official Douglas W. Kmiec, whose switch has infuriated his erstwhile allies in the conservative movement. While Mr. Kmiec still strongly opposes abortion, he also believes that the status quo will be perpetuated by a McCain-Palin win. As he notes, Republicans have dominated the White House and Congress for nearly 30 years, and appointed most of the Supreme Court justices. Yet little has changed. (Abortion rates in fact dropped under Bill Clinton and are leveling off under George Bush.)
Mr. Kmiec also argues that Roe v. Wade is effectively settled law, and while the high court has a mostly Catholic conservative majority, only Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would consider overturning Roe — and not for moral reasons, but because they believe it was based on a flawed reading of the Constitution.
The only impact that either ticket would have on abortion would be in appointing judges to the supreme court. I would hope that whichever side wins would appoint judges that actually do their job and look to the Constitution rather than the society du jour.
R v.W is certainly a violation of the Constitution, for it pays lit erally no attention to the civil rights of the father. In fact, the fat her is not even mentioned in the ruling. But father’s by law have to pay and the child is one half theirs, so….
LM
As we approach the vote on Measure 11 in South Dakota, which would eliminate elective abortion, we are blessed with the efforts of Mary Glenski & Democrats for Life of South Dakota. Aisle crossovers can happen when values come to the fore.
“Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would consider overturning Roe — and not for moral reasons, but because they believe it was based on a flawed reading of the Constitution.”
Justices Thomas and Scalia are certainly correct, but not for the reasons articulated by Larry Morse (#2 above). Roe relies on the creation of a right to privacy which does not exist in the Federal Constitution, but was created by members of the S.Ct. who were following their vision of morality, beyond anything either expressed in, or fairly implied by, the text.
I very much doubt that either Mr. Justice Thomas or Mr. Justice Scalia would articulate a new civil right behalf of fathers — instead, they would correctly rule that the the Constitution is silent on the subject of abortion, and leave it to the individual states to limit or regulate it (or not).
I think #4 is correct. The “right to privacy” is so hard to read into the U.S. Constitution that some states (CA, for example) have written it into their State Constitutions in anticipation of Roe’s eventual overturning.
The absurd Roe decision found right to privacy in an imagined “penumbra” (go look that one up) of rights emanating from rights which are enumerated.
Roe is junk law on top of its junk science, junk morality and junk politics. It really needs to go. That will not end abortion – there will be some states who choose to be very permissive toward it. But in many other places, it will be restricted to some degree or legally proscribed.
Nevertheless society, and people who call themselves Christians, support abortion in sufficient numbers to keep it firmly legalized. Actually the Romans were more honest about what they were doing.
Society would not keep abortion as legal as it presently is. There is plenty of support for substantial restrictions, if only the courts can be forced to get the hell out of the way.
“Such arguments have not yet proved persuasive to the American public, and minds are not likely to be changed by judicial fiat, even from the Supreme Court.”
..revealing a nice ignorance of history since it was PRECISELY by judicial fiat that the law of the states -which was subject to rational argument – was thwarted in one fell swoop. The author of this article need remedial education in history. I strongly suggest:
DISPELLING THE MYTHS OF ABORTION HISTORY by Joseph W. Dellapenna (Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC, 2006) for a complete -1097 pages exclusive of indexes- review by this Professor of Law at Villanova University.
http://www.amazon.com/Dispelling-Abortion-History-Joseph-Dellapenna/dp/0890895090/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221259027&sr=8-1
When we have an actual argument on a state and national level and an actual vote on the issue, then we can make statements about support for abortion. That has NEVER happened. The Supreme Court made it so and they can unmake it so, too. This is what the pro-aborts fear. It was fine to impose THEIR will on the country and the aborted, but somehow it’s “unfair, unjust” for the imposition of anyone else’s will. Typical “liberal” fascism, actually.
And, as a country, we have been “doing” the Obama alternative of provision under the guise of the “great society” and the welfare and medicaid systems with the observable results we have today. It has not worked and it will not work.
But don’t tell the 40-50 million aborted children that. They can’t hear you.
Roe V Wade is junk law in that the Constitution of the United States does not mention abortion, just like it doesn’t have any clause of seperating Church & state. Additionally, there is not an “equal rights” amendmet. Different people with different agendas have been trying sine 1929 to get it past, and apparently the American people don’t but into it.
Ther main reason it is junkl law is that the court legislated from the bench and effectively silenced the legislative and executive branches of government saying that they know better, no matter what the voters want, just like in California.
Sorry for the poor spelling, I’m getting angrier by the day over all this.
What #4 says is true enough. But what I said above is also true, but virtually no one pays attention to it, precisely because the issue is fatherhood (and its theoretical civil rights). R v. W assumes that the child is the mother’s and hers alone. This obviously cannot be the case.
Larry
There is no doubt that Cathoic justices Thomas and Scalia oppose abortion on moral grounds, but Scalia’s legal opposition to Roe v Wade is on strict constructionist grounds, that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, and therefore this is a matter for the States (as it was until 1973). The same judicial activism (read: usurpation of the legislature’s powers) that brought in abortion on demand is now ding the same to marriage laws, in the ingenious discovery of ‘rights’.
A fascinating article about pro-lifers who themselves have abortions.
Anecdotes without corroborating evidence from biased sources. That’s great evidence, ember. But even if it is true, the idea that some people do things they think is wrong is hardly novel. Have you ever, even once, read Paul’s epistle to the Romans? Stupid me. Of course you haven’t.
Having grown up as a Southern Baptist, I have read Paul’s epistle to the Romans more times than I could possibly count. Thank you for your kind, Christlike words.