Well, that sort of shoots down the argument that we will only stop abortion when we change people’s hearts and minds. There are more abortions now than there was when Roe v Wade was first decided. And why don’t we have more Pro-life justices on the court? Because voters didn’t care when they elected Bill Clinton in 92 and again in 96. Perhaps instead of a Breyer and Ginsburg, we could have had 2 more conservative justices. But it “was the economy, stupid” and people voted with their pocketbooks and could have cared less about the killing of preborn babies.
>> Well, that sort of shoots down the argument that we will only stop abortion when we change people’s hearts and minds.
Hearts and minds are simply the first step.
>> There are more abortions now than there was when Roe v Wade was first decided.
There are also far more people in the country than there were in 1973. And, most abortionists are repeat offenders.
>> And why don’t we have more Pro-life justices on the court?
Several reasons. Some caused by voters, many completely out of voter control.
(1) A liberal President (Clinton nominated Ginsberg and Breyer);
(2) a couple of lousy nominations (Souter was a Bush nominee, Kennedy a Reagan nominee);
(3) one relic that just won’t leave (Stevens was nominated by Ford);
and — most importantly ...
(4) the ridiculous non-confirmation of Robert Bork. Bork, a rock-solid conservative, and legal genius, was replaced by Anthony Kennedy.
>> But it “was the economy, stupid” and people voted with their pocketbooks and could have cared less about the killing of preborn babies.
Few people vote based on a single issue. People also elected Ronald Reagan and George Bush consecutively — and watched Robert Bork get beat up and thrown aside, and Kennedy nominated in his place, and then saw Souter nominated by Bush. The people did their job — the nominees were just lousy, or thrown out by a partisan Senate.
H