Some thoughts on Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked Supreme Court draft regarding Roe v. Wade:
The leak itself: Most likely, it came from an abortion supporter hoping to spark the uproar that has followed. With pro-life Republicans demanding an investigation, and pro-abortion Democrats totally uninterested in identifying who was responsible, that conclusion seems evident.
Pro-abortion hysteria: Reaction was immediate, and unhinged, from abortion activists, the lucrative abortion industry, their ever-faithful media lapdogs and pro-abortion politicians.
“An abomination — one of the worst, most damaging decisions in modern history," wailed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Abortion advocates doxxed Supreme Court justices, trying to intimidate them with demonstrations outside their homes.
Catholic churches have been vandalized as pro-abortion forces resort to their trademark anti-Catholic bigotry. In Wisconsin, a pro-life office was fire-bombed. In Boston, a pro-abortion protester was arrested for assaulting a pro-life speaker.
In Los Angeles, pro-abortion demonstrators clashed with police. And if 2020’s violent Antifa-BLM rioting is prologue, we’re in for more of the same — absent, of course, any theatrical denunciations from Schumer or other pro-abortion pols and media.
President Biden: Trying to square his “devout” Catholicism with his pro-abortion party, Joe Biden has been all over the map on this issue over the years. So it was no surprise that in condemning the Alito draft — but not it’s having been leaked — he inadvertently buttressed the pro-life cause and undermined his own.
He defended a woman’s right “to abort a child,” acknowledging that a child exists in the womb; then he declared, “I have the rights that I have, not because the government gave them to me … but because I am just a child of God, I exist.” The pro-life case cannot be stated more succinctly.
Precedent: Pro-abortion voices howl that after almost 50 years, Roe is untouchable.
“They do not have the right to change this,” claimed Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington. She needs to become a little more familiar with the Constitution.
Of course the Supreme Court can revisit prior decisions, and change or overturn those it deems egregiously wrong. Justice Alito cited a case in point: Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 “separate but equal” ruling upholding racial discrimination. That decision was in force longer than Roe has been; yet it was, thankfully, overturned by the court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.
What Alito’s draft would actually do: In fact, Roe was even more extreme than Plessy, and Alito’s draft falls well short of what Brown decreed. Plessy did not mandate discrimination against African Americans, it simply allowed states to discriminate if they so chose. Roe mandated that every state allow the indiscriminate killing of unborn children.
Brown rightly concluded that no state could deny any person equal protection of the law based on race. Alito’s draft — much like Plessy, actually — would still allow states to deny equal protection to the unborn, if they so choose.
Yes, it would finally strike down Roe’s invention of a constitutional “right” to abortion. After almost 50 years, that is a major achievement. But it is not, as many conservatives assert, the end of the national government’s responsibility. Because at bottom, this is not about “states’ rights” but about the right to life — the most fundamental of natural rights on which all others depend.
If that constitutional right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the 5th and 14th amendments, is to be upheld, we must ultimately — as one nation — follow the science, recognize the legal personhood of unborn children, and afford their lives the equal protection of our laws.
The politics: Pro-abortion Democrats and media, desperate to stave off a projected Republican wave in November, are seizing on this as their chance to turn the tide. It won’t — unless Republicans run scared, as some often do on this issue. Americans are closely divided on abortion, and many support the kinds of state — and national — limits the Alito draft would allow, and pro-abortion Democrats oppose: bans on late-term abortions; protection for babies born alive following failed abortions; informed consent for women seeking abortions; parental notification before a minor can get an abortion; an end to forced use of our tax dollars to pay for other people’s abortions.
Pro-life Republicans should stand their ground, support these popular restrictions and use them to illustrate the extremism of their pro-abortion opponents. They should also vigorously oppose pro-abortion efforts to drive pro-life pregnancy centers, and their loving care for women and children, out of existence — leaving abortion as the only choice for women in crisis.
Going forward: The pro-life movement, besides supporting all these life-affirming initiatives, must re-double our education efforts, using technology, science, and personal witness to tell the beautiful story of new human life growing in the womb — so that one day, please God, all Americans will stand together, to lovingly welcome and legally protect the lives of innocent unborn children.
Only then will justice prevail.
For three decades, Rick Hinshaw has given voice to faith values in the public square, as a columnist, then editor of The Long Island Catholic; Communications Director for the Catholic League and the N.Y. State Catholic Conference; co-host of The Catholic Forum cable TV show; and now editor of his own blog, Reading the Signs. Visit Rick’s home page at rickhinshaw.com. Read Rick Hinshaw's Reports — More Here.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.