Tag: Roe v. Wade

Member Post

 

The infant formula crisis is just the latest example of another crisis exacerbated by a Biden-directed federal agency. The FDA appears to have other priorities. It was a bright sunny winter day in Washington, DC, on January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan, having just been sworn in as the nation’s 40th president, uttered these oft-quoted […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

Two of my favorite acronyms are SNAFU and FUBAR. They’re not favorite federal agencies, although they could describe many of them. “Situation normal, all fouled up” is the first one. “Fouled up beyond all recognition” is the second one. Other renditions replace “fouled” with a more colorful f word. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

I’m no fan of US Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania. It started before he was elected in 2006 when he unseated my friend and US Senator Rick Santorum in the very Democratic year of 2006. Had Santorum been reelected, he was slated to become the Assistant Republican Leader. Santorum would instead win eleven states […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

SCOTUS Isn’t Our Only Option; Pray, Witness, and Starve the Beast

 

The recent leak that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade has injected a wave of hope for pro-lifers across the country. It is almost surreal for those of us who have long supported the culture of life through prayer, financial support, and personal witness. But regardless of the legal outcomes, Christians have another tool in our boxes to support life: defunding the abortion industry by taking our hard-earned health care dollars elsewhere.

Over the past few decades, forces have worked to move abortion from a tragic occurrence to a health insurance line item many unwillingly support through premiums. Word gymnastics and vague, euphemistic language have blurred the procedures included in standard health insurance plans. But the reality is different: if we have health insurance, we’re involuntarily funding the abortion procedures that run counter to a culture of life and Christian Biblical values.

Many of us have felt trapped in a Catch-22, with what we thought were our only options for healthcare. We’ve looked to the law — which certainly requires an admirable degree of faith — to right the wrong. However, as we have clearly seen, many in office have placed little to no concern on what are considered dated moral values, let alone simple and affordable healthcare options. Eight years ago, we realized that legal protections don’t have to be our only option to protect the lives of the unborn.

Member Post

 

A favorite podcast is “What the Hell is Going On,” featuring the American Enterprise Institute’s Marc Thiessen and Danielle Pletka. Their most recent podcast featured law professor and former Supreme Court law clerk John Yoo on Roe v. Wade. It is the best discussion I’ve heard of Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion to overturn […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Roe’s Awkward Departure

 

Politico rocked the nation with its recent exclusive and explosive publication of a mysteriously leaked copy of Justice Samuel Alito’s February 10, 2022, draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the apparent decision by at least five Supreme Court Justices to uphold Mississippi’s law banning elective abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. That opinion makes it likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, which crafted a constitutional right to an abortion forty-nine years ago in 1973. The defenders of the Dobbs opinion regard it as a triumph of originalism worthy of “three very enthusiastic cheers.” In sharp contrast, the progressive critics of the decision go to exquisite lengths to express their complete and utter contempt for a decision that according to the League of Women’s Voters “not only strips women and pregnant people of their personal autonomy but opens the door to erode more fundamental rights,” leading “to collective shock and outrage” by pro-choice advocates.

Clearly, with stakes this high it is important to set aside both exultation and despair in order to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Alito opinion. On the positive side, Alito’s opinion adopts a tone of workmanlike seriousness that is quite circumspect about overruling past precedents, and explicitly disclaims any intention to overrule any other precedent on either women’s or LBGTQ rights. Instead, it treats abortion  as “a unique act” that does not impact “in any way” Lawrence v. Texas (2003), dealing with private consensual sexual behavior, or Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), constitutionally protecting same-sex marriage. Instead, it articulates a two-stage argument that dismantles the establishment in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey of a constitutional right to abortion. The first part notes that abortion is not explicitly protected in the Constitution. The second part contends that Roe cannot be defended on some implied “substantive due process” grounds, because it does not meet the standard set out in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), which refused to recognize any right to assisted suicide, namely that “any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ ”

As Alito exhaustively documents, that standard cannot be met given the impressive array of common law and statutory criminal prohibitions of abortion in effect before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, at the time of its adoption in 1868, or at any time thereafter. Yet at no point does Alito find any constitutional prohibition against the decriminalization of abortion. Instead, his chief complaint is that Roe “short-circuited the democratic process” that would otherwise lead to some political resolution in the same state legislatures that controlled the law on abortion before Roe. Recall that at the time of Roe, states had dramatically different abortion laws, from Texas’ very restrictive law (at issue in Roe) to New York’s 1970 law, which legalized abortion up through twenty-four weeks of pregnancy and whenever the mother’s life was in danger. Alito then shows that Roe’s legal reasoning “was exceedingly weak,” especially in light of its internal confusions, including its inability to justify different constitutional rules for each of the three trimesters of a pregnancy. Alito leveled the same criticism at Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992), which affirmed Roe’s establishment of a right to abortion whenever state regulations impose an “undue burden on that right.” Hence, he struck down an opinion that could not be justified by the mere passage of time, and that had never gained political legitimacy during the past forty-nine years.

Left-Wing Groups Planning on Crashing Catholic Churches

 

I have received multiple email warnings about left wing groups, especially one called Ruth Sent Us, planning to crash Catholic Churches this Sunday in the aftermath of the leaked SCOTUS decision to overthrow Roe.  From the Washington Times:

Pro-choice activists are planning protests in churches on Mother’s Day and are preparing visits to Supreme Court justices’ homes next week to express anger over an anticipated ruling overturning legalized abortion.

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, joins Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to give listeners a peek inside the last March for Life before the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and analyze the role pro-life activism has played in the campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Member Post

 

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is a United Nations document that assumes some ideas preexist others. Here’s what I mean. The idea that all people have worth, value, and dignity is a preexisting idea. The idea is in the first line of the U.N. document. Any group or nation which defends the rights of […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

This week on Hubwonk, host Joe Selvaggi talks with writer and historian Ramesh Ponnuru about the history of American opinion and jurisprudence on abortion and identifies errors in the narrative that shaped the Roe v. Wade decision, that may influence the pending case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
strong>Guest:

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review, where he has covered national politics and policy for 25 years. He is also a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, which syndicates his articles in newspapers across the nation. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and he serves as a contributing editor to National Affairs, the quarterly journal of conservative ideas. His articles are frequently published in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. In 2015, he was included in the “Politico 50,” Politico’s list of “the thinkers, doers, and dreamers who really matter” in American politics. In 2014, Ponnuru contributed to and (with Yuval Levin) edited the book Room to Grow: Conservative Reforms for a Limited Government and A Thriving Middle Class. New York Times columnist David Brooks called the book “the most coherent and compelling policy agenda the American right has produced this century.” Ponnuru was subsequently featured in a New York Times magazine cover story about reform-minded conservatives. In 2013 he was a resident fellow at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics. He is a regular speaker on policy, politics, and constitutionalism at the nation’s leading college campuses and law schools. He also appears regularly on television programs about public affairs. He is the author of a book on the sanctity of human life and American politics and of a monograph on Japanese industrial policy. Previously he has been a columnist for Time magazine and WashingtonPost.com. Ponnuru grew up in Kansas City, Kansas, and graduated from Princeton University. He now lives in the Washington, D.C., area with his wife and three children.

Byron York is in for Jim Geraghty today.  Byron and Greg cheer Mississippi’s attorney general for telling the Supreme Court there is no constitutional right to an abortion. They also react to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejecting certain Republicans from the January 6th commission by pointing out the radical lefties she has named to the panel. And they have some choice words for the Biden administration after learning that Hunter Biden will be meeting prospective buyers of his ridiculously overpriced art when the transactions are supposed to be anonymous.

Should Roe v. Wade Stand?

 

The United States Supreme Court put abortion on center stage for its 2021–22 term last week when it agreed to review Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In Dobbs, the Fifth Circuit upheld the Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which prohibits, except in cases of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities, abortions after fifteen weeks of gestational age. That statute is commonly understood to be in stark conflict with the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which holds that a women’s right of privacy—itself nowhere explicitly stated in the Constitution—is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” before the fetus is viable, estimated at roughly twenty-four weeks of gestational age. The balancing test of Roe was explicitly affirmed and further developed in the 1992 Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, which concluded that the state’s “profound interest in potential life” is not “strong” enough to block an abortion or to impose an “undue burden” on that right.

Despite constant attacks on its constitutional pedigree, Roe has been affirmed by “an unbroken line” of cases, as the Fifth Circuit noted in Dobbs. Even so, the deep unease about Roe was clearly articulated in Judge James Ho’s concurring opinion, which acknowledged the precedential force of Roe only to sharply attack its methodological underpinnings for giving insufficient weight to the state’s interest. Though the Mississippi law posed three challenges to the current Roe/Casey synthesis, the court granted the state’s petition for certiorari solely on one question: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” The court declined to review on the temporizing question of whether, under the Roe/Casey framework, the Mississippi statute posed an “undue burden” on the abortion right.

Defenders of Roe view the case as an all-or-nothing choice. Thus, Emily Cain (of EMILY’s List) lamented that this “consequential” order now reveals the Republican goal “to overturn Roe and take away the right [for women] to make their own health care decisions.” Republicans, for their part, do not deny that charge, but insist that their tireless efforts to elect pro-life legislators has been vindicated by the grant of certiorari.

Member Post

 

In my humble opinion, joined by many other observers who have commented upon this legal development today, the United States Supreme Court has handed down an order this morning which could very well represent the first major challenge to Roe v. Wade, in whole or in part, with serious potential for success, in many years.  […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Uncommon Knowledge: A Charming Conversation

 

In his most recent episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson’s conversation with Richard Epstein and John Yoo focuses on the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, and Roe v. Wade, the most comprehensively and consequentially flawed Court decision in recent history. It’s a terrific show, a relaxed and thoughtful discussion with serious people about important things.

Justice Thomas’s Blistering Dissent on Monday’s Abortion Ruling

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana abortion law requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Chief Justice Roberts again sided with the left in  Monday’s ruling on June Medical Services v. Russo. (PDF here.)

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas offered a blistering dissent not only against this decision but the entirety of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade was decided. Below are excerpts from Justice Thomas’s remarks.

Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction. As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.

Sanctity of Life: A March and a Proclamation

 

Every January since 1974, tens of thousands have come together in Washington, DC, for the March for Life. This year, the march will be held on Friday, January 24. It will be reliably unreported and unreliably reported upon, as it always has been.

Some years, the president is hostile and sometimes sympathetic, on the surface, for electoral reasons at least. Since 2017, President Trump has been clearly sympathetic for both the transactional reason of electoral support and as a matter of personal conviction that seems to map fairly closely with where the American center has come: a revulsion with ghoulish late-term procedures. We first saw that in his fiery answer in the final 2016 presidential debate (at 17:46).

President Trump has issued a proclamation declaring January 22 to be “National Sanctity of Life Day.” That is because the US Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.

Member Post

 

In the wake of New York’s evil legislation, not just enacted but celebrated, a reminder is merited that abortion — baby killing — is not something Americans can accept on a state-by-state basis. As with legal slavery, legal abortion is a sin that stains us all.  The core issue is the same as slavery: the […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Hello, there, and welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for July 10, 2018. It’s number 183! It is the Trump SCOTUS edition of the podcast and it is about (tada!) the Trump Supreme Court of the United States. Or, as they will be calling it, the Trump Court. And it is just another reason to chuckle at the #NeverTrump chuckleheads who voted for and pulled for Hillary because Trump was going to end America as we know it.

At the time of the recording the President had not yet picked Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee, so our discussion is a little more general than that. We also talk about abortion and Roe vs. Wade – not entirely unrelated I’m sure you’ll agree.

Leave Her to Heaven or the Courts?

 

A few years ago, I read that the pro-choice faction had come up with a new strategy: When encountering people who think all abortion should be criminalized, press them to describe what the criminal penalty for the pregnant woman should be. Because, obviously, no one would seriously propose penalizing the woman.

So let me ask you, Ricochet: if you believe abortion should be a crime —  and assuming the woman is sui juris and voluntarily undergoes the procedure or purchases the necessary drugs — then why shouldn’t she subject to criminal penalties in a post-Roe world? If you believe it’s murder, isn’t the mom-to-be guilty of contracting a for a hit on the fetus?