Posted on 07/10/2018 2:23:52 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
President Trump’s nomination of D.C. circuit court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat on the United States Supreme Court vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy may furnish the fifth vote needed to overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that legalized abortion in every jurisdiction of the United States. Judge Kavanaugh is a textualist who is suspicious of the kind of judicial innovation that led to the court’s ruling in Roe. That decision removed a matter of grave moral concern—about which there was and remains no public moral consensus—from the democratic process.
Reversing Roe will not make abortion illegal in every jurisdiction. It would simply affirm the right of the people, through their legislators, to make the law, while upholding the right of the judiciary to say what the law is. Thus more than 40 years after the court ushered in an era of abortion virtually on demand, voters may once again have the right to debate the issue and determine what public policy should govern. This should be a welcome development for the millions of people who in dozens of public opinion polls have registered their objection to the expansive permissibility of the Roe settlement. It should also be welcomed by all those who believe that democracies should settle such matters by argument and voting rather than judicial fiat. The prospect of reversing Roe increases the stakes in this nomination battle. That potential reversal, however, effectively returning abortion politics to the states, offers the way to prevent the issue from continuing to dominate future Supreme Court nominations.
Yet the possibility of a fundamental change in the abortion debate also affords the church an opportunity to reimagine its public witness on this and other pro-life issues. The church should not abdicate its responsibility to bear witness to a consistent ethic of life from conception to natural death. But the possibility that Roe might be overturned impels us to consider how we might more effectively use our voice in the public debate that will follow. We should begin by avoiding the intramural argument that has consumed too many Catholics—namely, whether other pro-life issues are as important as or more important than abortion. This argument is itself an artifact of Roe’s removal of abortion from normal political debate, which has led to claims that opposing Roe must override all other pro-life concerns. The truth is that there are grave and important issues for pro-life people beyond abortion, including euthanasia, the death penalty and sane immigration policy. These issues, however, must not be traded off against the defense of the lives of unborn children.
If Roe is overturned, continued Catholic advocacy for a comprehensive medical and social safety net for expectant mothers will be crucial in order to save lives and render abortion an even less appealing choice to the public conscience. At this juncture, anyone who recognizes the humanity of the unborn should support the nomination of a justice who would help return this issue to the legislative arena. Overturning Roe would save lives and undo a moral and constitutional travesty.
"If Roe is overturned, continued Catholic advocacy for a comprehensive medical and social safety net for expectant mothers will be crucial in order to save lives and render abortion an even less appealing choice to the public conscience. At this juncture, anyone who recognizes the humanity of the unborn should support the nomination of a justice who would help return this issue to the legislative arena. Overturning Roe would save lives and undo a moral and constitutional travesty. "
I posted this mainly because it's from "America," the Jesuit magazine. I think it's reasonable.
Your thoughts?
IF such a vote ever comes up while the dead soul John Roberts sits the bench. his masters will tweak his strings and he will do as they command him do. The nurderous rite of slaughtering alive, sensing, unborn human beings will not be removed.
I’ve heard several SCOTUS justices comment over the years that they consider Roe v Wade a completed case and to re-visit it would take a significant NEW argument as to why to reopen it.
I think the left is just freaking out in faux rage over nothing. While I would like it re-visited, it’ll be years in the making to get there, if it even happens.
“Roe probably won’t be overturned because it probably won’t come up; Casey is the center of abortion law nowadays....
...Here is reality: Casey’s refinement of the right judicially manufactured in Roe granted expansive and expanding room to regulate abortion. The validity of those regulations, not the core holding of Roe, is what dominates abortion litigation nowadays. It is unlikely that cases will present a need to grapple with Roe; it is even less likely that Roe will be overturned...
...The real action on abortion today derives from Casey, decided 19 years after Roe. The real legal action, that is. That’s a caveat worth adding. If abortion ever gets rolled back in this country, it will be because a cultural shift forces legal change, not the other way around...” - By Andrew C. McCarthy
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/supreme-court-unlikely-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/
Sorry but don’t count on the Jesuits for support. In the 1980’s Cardinal O’Connor fought a heroic fight against the abortionists and their political leader, the vile Governor Mario Cuomo He got absolutely no support from the Jesuits at Fordham and in fact they openly hired pro abortion non Catholic “theologians” to their faculty.
“We should begin by avoiding the intramural argument that has consumed too many Catholics—namely, whether other pro-life issues are as important as or more important than abortion. This argument is itself an artifact of Roe’s removal of abortion from normal political debate, which has led to claims that opposing Roe must override all other pro-life concerns.”
This is bs.
Abortion does override all other “pro-life” concerns.
Abortion is the direct taking of innocent human life. It is murder. It is intrinsically evil.
Other “pro-life” issues either really aren’t pro-life issues, but rather progressive policies open to the political debate as to their worth, or are prudential judgements about which there are legitimate differences.
Jesuits attempting to obscure the truth. Typical.
On the other hand, they pay well.
Well said.
This is true, inasmuch as the prohibition of murder is one of the exceptionless norms, like the prohibition of sodomy, adultery, or perjury.
And because it's directly intended homicide, it has that in common with infanticide, euthanasia, and "assisted" "suicide" --- and other forms of socially-approved or legalized murder.
They know that. Even RBG knows that.
Bogey man scare tactics again Roberts will never overturn Roe. I doubt that Kavanaugh will either. Not that it will come up anyway. Even if it did there isn’t 1 State that will ban 1st tri-mester abortions. Bank it.
The same as before he was Nominated.
It’s just a Fundraising through Fear tool of the Left.
First thought: I hope RvW withers on the vine.
Second thought: It seems to it would be more effective to bring the multitudes into the (authentic) Catholic faith. Without going into detail, if everybody followed Church doctrine, there would be little need for pregnancy centers or abortion mills.
I’m sure I will get roasted for saying that, but the fact is this is a spiritual problem that cannot be solved by the flesh.
The first three you mentioned are also murder, and thus genuine pro-life issues, but still socially secondary to abortion, as they are not yet tsunamis of genocide.
The other issues are sins, but not specifically anti-life sins or crimes.
And issues like immigration enforcement, welfare payments, DeathCare by the Kenyan anti-Christ, or the legitimate enforcement of capital punishment are not sins at all. In spite of what Jesuit idiots think.
“Abortion is the direct taking of innocent human life. It is murder. It is intrinsically evil.”
Yup.
So evil, in fact, that up until recently a Priest was not allowed to absolve the murdering party in Confession, but he/she had to go to a Bishop for cleansing.
It used to be taken much more seriously - and that was BEFORE the technology was available to confirm abortion was the taking of human life.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Until very intentionally, very systematically, these Jesuit Sons of Perdition --- Fr. Richard McCormick, S.J., Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Josef Fuchs, S.J., Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J., and Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J. -- turned him around.
. However there are some good Jesuits: Dulles, Pacwa, Gawronski, Fessio.
And it's a mild relief to see a semi-respectable editorial from America, even though they don't reference that "Murder" is one of those exceptionless norm thingies that can send you to hell.
It would make it a lot easier to cut off all the public funding, though. And that will help.
That would be really a challenge to Roe from a different angle.
Remember Roe jumped off of Griswold and the cases holding that the right to privacy allows for all sorts of acts many find immoral.
Tagline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.