The Argus Leader has this in a piece by David Kranz; it no doubt represents the views of many pro-life activists:
When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement Friday from the U.S. Supreme Court, it created some optimism among South Dakotans who are trying to pass a law banning all abortions. . . .
"This is huge, a great opportunity. We have been working every Thursday for six months on a plan when Rehnquist retired. Now, we will initiate it for O'Connor's replacement and will work very hard, turn up the heat and the machine," Unruh said.
I think it is a poor idea to choose Supreme Court justices based on any single issue, even this one. I would like to see Roe overturned for two reasons: it was a shameless piece of judicial invention, and it is inconsistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But it is very hard to manipulate votes on the Court by this blunt method. Rather we should focus on getting judges who read the Constitution instead of trying to rewrite it at their whim.
Besides, if you want to really do something about abortion, the way to do it is to it is to press for reforms that are already popular among voters at large. This piece by William Saletan in Slate lays it out very well (toth to Real Clear Politics).
Reporters asked Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., what might happen to Roe. Santorum is one of the most avid pro-lifers in Congress. But he also serves in the Senate Republican leadership and faces a tough re-election fight next year. "I'm not sure that Roe itself will be in jeopardy," he demurred. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review headlined his comments, "Santorum predicts limits on abortions." The paper's lede said Santorum "expected the next justice to be more inclined to ban so-called partial birth abortions. He also predicted parental consent for minors seeking abortions will likely get a more sympathetic ear."
Why do Bush and Santorum pick these restrictions? Look at the polls. Do you want Roe overturned? Two-thirds say no. Should partial-birth abortion be illegal? Two-thirds say yes. Should teenage girls have to notify their parents before getting an abortion? Four-fifths say yes.
I suspect that the 2/3rds against overturning Roe is misleading. Most folk assume that overturning Roe would mean an end to legal abortions. In fact abortion would then have the same status as gambling used to have: some form of it would probably be legal in most states, and all forms illegal in a handful.
The trouble is, there is no way to attack Roe without sounding like you are trying to criminalize abortion everywhere, whether that's your intention or not. I think the best strategy for conservatives is to stick to judicial restraint as our most important principle and work for it honestly. We want judges who read the Constitution fairly, not those who would institute conservative principles through legislative fiat.
We are a long way from a court that would overturn Roe, but a slightly more conservative court would probably clear the way for parental consent and an end to such atrocious practices as partial birth abortion. But it would be up to us to push such measures through the old fashioned way: by winning elections and votes in Congress and State legislatures.
Recent Comments