Replies

Yes, the court is easier. Which is why, if you really want to protect life because it’s sacred, you have to change tactics.

The current tactic focuses on a “strict constructionist” approach, which strikes down Roe and thereby throws abortion back to the states. South Dakota shows that even red states, when given the choice, will vote to maintain abortion rights. So, a constitutional point is made by striking down Roe, but no babies are saved, because the majority of Americans WANT the convenience of being able to kill babies, when the rubber meets the road.

The Court is the anti-majoritarian branch. Strict constructionism may restore constitutional purity, but it won’t save babies’ lives. I am interested in saving babies’ lives. And I understand that the only way to do that, in America, is to find a way to override the will of the majority of the American people, from sea to sea. The only way to do THAT is to get a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t strike down abortion rights on federal grounds, throwing the issue back to the states, but strikes down abortion period, on human rights and due process grounds. Aborting a child kills a human being without due process of law. A court needs to be empanelled that will find, in a judicial opinion, that an unborn child is a legal person, and thereby protected by the Constitution, thereby removing abortion completely from the political process just like Roe did, but in the other direction. The answer to abortion is NOT democracy or federalism. Americans WANT THE CONVENIENCE of killing babies.

The answer is that babies are human beings, and human beings are protected by the Constitution, and the constitution overrides all state law and Congress too. Abortion should be unconstitutional, period. The majority of Americans do not agree with that, but not a BIG ENOUGH majority to be able to amend the Constitution and override a Supreme Court decision which strikes down Roe by protecting the unborn as a matter of Constitutional right. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to override the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. The votes are not there to do that IF the Supreme Court abolishes abortion by fiat. That is the only way to protect the babies, and I think that protecting millions of innocent lives is more important than the counter-arguments.

So, that’s what we have to do if you really want to protect babies. We do not need “strict constructionists” on the high court, who will strike down Roe but then send it to the states where abortion will be protected. We need principled judges who will outlaw abortion as a matter of the federal constitution. This is conservative judicial activism, I suppose, but when I come right down to it, abstract principles of federalism are not nearly as important as the lives of 2 million children every year.

I do not want any more “strict constructionists”. I want pro-life judges who will impose a no-abortion rule on the whole country as a matter of constitutional law.