I seem to be writing about abortion a lot recently... go figure. Roger Pilon has an excellent explanation of why Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue of abortion returned to the states. It's really pretty simple:
And so the basic substantive question was clear: When does the right to life begin?On that question, the Constitution is indeed silent--mostly. Here's why. We would all agree, I hope, that if a doctor took the life of a baby one day after birth, it would be infanticide--murder. Thus, states that protected older babies but not younger ones would doubtless be subject to equal protection challenges, at least, and would probably lose. But if taking the life of a baby one day after birth is murder, what is the difference if the act is performed one day before birth? It strains credulity to suppose there is any real difference. Well, what of two days before birth--and so on down the line? It's impossible to draw a principled line at which to say, precisely, that this is where the right to life begins. The court's trimester taxonomy in Roe was its own invention, entitled to no more constitutional support than anyone else's opinion on the matter.
And so we come to the jurisdictional question: Who decides? And on that the Constitution is not silent. Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270 days, we all believe, I hope, that it begins at some point along that line. We all agree, that is, that there is some point at which abortion amounts to murder. We just can't agree about where that point is. And so we're faced with a classic line-drawing problem, not unknown in other areas of the law, but here involving the criminal law and, therefore, the general police power--the power that belongs, under the Constitution, to states.
Legislatures and Congress should be drawing lines, not the courts.
I'd be thrilled if Roe v. Wade were overturned.. but not primarily because of federalism, but because I want to see the issue die.
I also want to see what the fallout is:
- A majority of the country wants abortion to remain legal. If Republican legislators at the state level in quite a few states attempt to make abortion illegal, they may very well end up turning a "Red" state into a "Blue" one.
- Christian conservatives are unlikely to be satisfied with the states who decide to keep abortion legal. What they do about that will be interesting to see.
Clarification:
Christian conservatives in states where abortion is made illegal are unlikely to be satisfied with the states who decide to keep abortion legal. What will they do? I suspect many of them will want the federal government to intervene. Remember: Christian conservatives are not necessarily.. or reliably.. people who care a great deal about federalism. Look what they've done, via the Republican party, with the federal budget.
Mark, I don't think that Christian conservatives have been cheering the expansion of the federal budget. They are only part of the Republican party; they don't control it.
BB: They have had quite a bit of pull in the Republican party lately. They're the base of the party - of course they've been in control lately.
I'd also wager that there are quite a few big-government Christian conservatives in the Republican party.. people who like to see more laws that limit liberties and more government programs to support and expand upon their values and sensibilities.
The proposal to apply FCC "decency rules" to cable and satellite programming, including HBO and Showtime - is one example that comes to mind.
You're getting all psychic again, Mark. If you're not a Republican or a Christian Conservative, why do you think you know so much about them?
I don't think they have much interest in the size of the federal budget. I think they see themselves as being persecuted by the Left, and they want protection from government, not special favors.
To take your example, there have always been decency rules on all forms of public entertainment. It was aggressive liberal courts in the sixties who invented the idea that the first amendment protects pornography. A call for decency rules isn't a call for conservative big government. It's an attempt to curb the explosion in pornography. It's reactive.
I suspect that much of the liberal fear of conservatives comes from projection. Most of what the liberals accuse the conservatives of wanting to do is what the liberals themselves would like to do. I say that because the liberal accusations about conservatives are so bizarre and obviously based on nothing.
Do you spend much time with evangelical Christians, Mark? Hang out in Mormon temples much? If not, then why do you think you understand them?
BB: I live in rural Wisconsin. There are many very religious people around here, almost all of which are Christian conservatives. They're not necessarily Republican, though. Many are Democrats.
You're right in that they probably aren't interested in the size of the federal budget.. which, if anything, means they don't really care how big it gets. That's a problem, from my perspective.
The call for decency rules.. on more than just broadcast and basic cable programming.. is indeed a call for conservative big government. Government's size isn't purely a function of how much money it spends. It's also a function of how intrusive it is in the lives and livelihoods of citizens and businesses. In the context of what we're talking about here.. how restrictive it is of free markets, like the entertainment market.
BB said: "I suspect that much of the liberal fear of conservatives comes from projection. .. I say that because the liberal accusations about conservatives are so bizarre and obviously based on nothing."
Yeah right.. and everything conservatives accuse liberals about is "obviously based on nothing". Sorry, buddy.. it's a two-way street.
Almost everyone cares about the budget deficit and the trade deficit. The problem is politicians and their unwillingness to take unpopular action to fix it. Democrats don't want to make cuts in their programs and Republicans don't want to make cuts in theirs and so these things keep growing at the taxpayers expense. It isn't a left or a right thing, it is politics, crappy as it is. Politicians want to be elected and keep their perks rather than actually fix anything and the American people keep electing the same pathetic people (Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, etc.).
6K: You left out the pathetic Republicans.
It's just not true that there's a societal consensus on maintaining the illegality of infanticide. If there were, Peter Singer would not be Princeton's premier bioethicist. He advocates the legalization of infanticide up to the sixth month. When a baby killing advocate gets a named chair at Princeton and alumni continue to give funds after that, there is no real, durable consensus on infanticide.
The abortion debate is a lot wilder than most people realize.
Mark,
Sorry, couldn't remember their names offhand but they are there. Notice I didn't say democrats...I said people. I just remember those three because they are the most infuriating - two being in my state.
6K: Speaking of politicians representing your state, what do you think of one representing mine; Russ Feingold?
I really like him. Every time I watch and listen to him talk about various issues, I get a sense that he's completely genuine and straightforward. I don't get that very often when watching and listening to politicians.
In the 2004 elections, his challenger was Tim Michels. I watched a locally-televised debate between the two and what struck me was how pragmatic and common-sense his answers were to the questions he was asked about the issues. It struck me because common sense is quite uncommon, especially among politicians in the running-for-office mode.
P.S. I wasn't referring to Tim Michels when I mentioned pragmatism and common sense.
Tim Michels was, in contrast, full of little more than partisan rhetoric.. the same kind I've heard plenty of at the national level.
Fiengold....half of the team responsible for McCain-Fiengold...oh yeah he's really good for putting together that gem of a law.
Oh, I don't agree with everything he does.. but I still like him as my senator.
So bills are so boneheaded they cannot be forgiven and that goes for McCain to. Of course it was the bonehead trifecta on letting their bonehead idea get through.
tP: So how do you really feel about it?