Abortion In America: The Law Should Be Changed

(NOTE: This article was written by yours truly the day before Justice O'Connor announced her resignation.)

In Congressional testimony, a prominent ethics expert criticized Roe v. Wade for putting the interests of the courts over those of the ability of a free people to determine its own fate. I must say that the testimony presents intriguing arguments against abortion and is yet another indication that "pro-choicers" may soon face new restrictions on that practice.

(Excerpt)

Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roe fuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion.

(End of Excerpt)

See: Link.