Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

Articles

Over 45 years of Life-Defending Articles At Your Fingertips
0 Comment

Dobbs v. Jackson: Folly—and Furor

02 Dec 2021
William Murchison
abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson, Supreme Court
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Every day, the beneficence and wisdom of our public “expert” class look less beneficent, and certainly less wise. There’s Covid; there’s public schooling and job opportunity; there’s race relations; there’s government spending. To which well-known topics, let’s join abortion and the right to life, as per the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Dec. 1 in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

What a display of folly and futility—leave aside attendant moral concerns—came to public notice as lawyers parried and the justices pondered what to do about Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

How come? How’d we get here? Why the moral/legal morass through which we wade endlessly, without resolution? We all know or should. It’s because half a century ago—January 22, 1973—seven judicial “experts,” in the Roe case, decided to impose upon an entire nation and civilization their personal intuitions respecting abortion. Two justices declined to go along.

The seven experts didn’t request from anyone the privilege of overturning ancient understandings of unborn life and the duties of those who carry it. They just did their thing. Here’s the way it is, folks! Aren’t you glad to know?

Except that by arrogating to themselves—in a putatively democratic setting—authority over a matter so fundamental as human life, they dragged their countrymen into that aforesaid moral/legal morass. “At a stroke,” declares a Wall Street Journal editorial, “the Court overturned 50 state laws and turned abortion into a pitched political battle that nonetheless could not be settled politically through the ballot box . . . That mistake has distorted American politics and law for a half century and made the Supreme Court a partisan battlefield.”

Let’s hear it for the “experts”! Nice job of dividing Americans on some of life’s most basic questions. Now, maybe in the wake of a Dobbs case decision—whatever its ultimate configuration—we can commence the important task of wresting moral choice from the “expert” class and restoring it to the people.

That’s to say—maybe—some space will emerge in our vast political landscape for allowing states and their people to decide for themselves, as in Mississippi, whether and how much they wish to protect unborn life. Mississippi’s legislatively enacted protective measure—no abortion after 15 weeks—is important not least because a legislative body enacted it: executing, in alignment with democratic theory, the will of the people. Not the will of the experts; the will—something quite unlike it—of that large, complex, highly differentiated collectivity in whose name legislators supposedly govern. Except when “experts” instruct them otherwise.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t care for Mississippi’s view of political duty inasmuch as it contradicts her own expert view, which, as she implied during the Dobbs hearing, is to avoid “the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts.” What in the world Roe was, if not a profound political act, perpetrated by the self-anointed Seven, is hard to say.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh got down to cases of a different sort. He suggested that “The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice . . . and leaves the issue to the people to resolve in the democratic process.” The democratic process! Puts one in mind of the constitutional convention and the Federalist Papers—relics as they may be of a time before politicians and journalists made expertise the touchstone of everything.

Back to how we got here. Our politicians allowed the Supreme Seven to gather deep moral matters in their hands and reveal to us their meaning. This was an awful break in American procedures. It snatched away the people’s right to speak on particular questions. And it hasn’t worked. Witness the furor over Dobbs.

An exit path from our distress could be the grant of judicial permission for the states that make up our federal union to decide for themselves what they want to do about abortion. They wouldn’t all agree, that goes without saying. But they could debate the questions, rather than salivate hopefully before non-elected jurists. “Women,” tweeted Sen. Amy Klobuchar, “should be able to make their own health care choices.” Sure, lady. So let ’em put their arguments out there in public and parry as far as possible the arguments of the other side. We used to call it democracy. That tattered, battered notion seems well worth another look.

Image thanks to Feminists Choosing Life of New York

218 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
William Murchison

William Murchison, a former syndicated columnist, is a senior editor of the Human Life Review. He will soon finish his book on moral restoration in our time.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Minnesota passes one of nation’s most permissive abortion laws

01 Feb 2023

Hit and run violence after Roe: Can't we talk about the morality of abortion?

28 Jan 2023

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.