Permit me to say that this is a partly good article. But a) it is too long, and bogs down in its latter half, so most people will throw up their hands and stop reading. And b) it contains at it's core a faulty assumption, that you have to choose between judicial tyranny and contempt for life as the basic principle at issue.
In his image of abortion as a tree that is larger than the whole forest, the writer seems to understand that that issue of priorities is a red herring. Judicial tyranny and the right of every created human being to life are BOTH bedrock principles in our constitutional system. The right to life is the most basic right of all. And freedom is one of the most basic rights as well.
In Roe v. Wade SCOTUS trampled on both these rights. The "inalienable" right of every citizen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--of which the right to life is clearly most basic; and the right of citizens to choose freely without the imposition of tyrannical decisions from above. It is a false distinction to imply that you have to choose one of these basic principles above the other. Nothing could be more basic than either life or freedom.
I agree with you on the first count. It is too long. I realized that when I started re-reading it after I had posted the thread. I should have just posted an excerpt. Sorry. (The guy's also way too wordy. Someone needs to tell him that the simplest writing is usually the best.)
On the second count, I'm not sure that I agree. I believe that he's arguing that we DON'T need to choose between judicial tyranny and contempt for life. He's arguing that the real issue isn't abortion, but the SCOTUS's contempt for the Constitution. The fact that abortion is at the center of this only magnifies the tragedy of the issue, but if the courts would uphold the law of a Democratic Republic then we would never have fallen into the mess of abortion to begin with. If you fix the Judicial tyranny problem you also will largely fix the abortion mess. Or am I missing something?