NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

“What If?”

by | Sep 23, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

As we approach the end of the week and the last National Right to Life News Today stories for Friday, let me briefly address an article that ran in the American Prospect, a journal decidedly not sympathetic to our cause. The moral of the story is that Republican judicial appointees are awful.

But in the middle of this diatribe is a thoughtful reflection on Roe v. Wade. Roe was a “failure,” the product of a social-engineering judge (Justice Harry Blackmun), we’re told. The case “leapfrogged ahead of public opinion to ‘settle’ the issue of abortion.”

Like Dred Scott, “the Court imagined it could lay down rules that would not only focus but also end an intense national controversy. This kind of power simply does not inhere in courts.”

The author alludes to a quote from pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who wrote the following in 1992 before being elevated to the Court: “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day … might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”

There will always be a debate where the country was headed just prior to the Roe decision. Pro-lifers point to certain victories to maintain that the “reform” movement had peaked. Pro-abortionists argue the movement to abolish protective laws was inevitable.

But the author of the American Prospect article, who given the thrust of the article is probably pro-abortion, concluded, “The country was feeling its way, and the Court stepped in like an officious parent to ‘settle’ an issue not ripe for settlement.”

Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Categories: Abortion