Thursday, March 09, 2006

Pick and choose the right Roe battles

At Blogs for Bush, Mark Noonan elucidates why he thinks now is the right time to challenge Roe:
All conservatives know that Roe is a wrongly decided opinion. It has no basis even in a broad reading of the Constitution. The Roe majority simply made it up out of whole cloth because they wanted abortion to be legal, come what may. Such a decision should not be given the respect of a genuine Court decision. It should be attacked and attacked and attacked until it is done away with.

We can't fight fire with squirt guns; eventually, we have to place ourselves squarely on the line and push our views in the public square. Abortion is murder - it destroys innocent life and constitutes gross abuse of the women bamboozled into having an elective abortion. If abortion isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong - and I'd rather fight it out now rather than cravenly just hope by chipping 'round the edges we might eventually, in 20 or 30 years, get what we want. No, thanks - that would mean tens of millions more murdered children, and I don't think I have the moral option of not trying to overturn Roe by the swiftest possible means.

I can respect Noonan's thoughts, but they have one glaring weakness. Why wasn't Roe challenged by a state banning abortion in 1976, or 1986, or 1996? Because the fight could not be won in the Supreme Court. What is different in 2006? The answer is "not enough." The fight still can't be won at the Supreme Court, and this challenge is only going to take wind out of the sails of future attempts. Pick the battles you can win, Mark. This one can't be won yet.

No comments: