Three reasons Roe v. Wade will fall

The U.S. Supreme Court-imposed abortion-on-demand regime of Roe v. Wade will one day fall. Why?

Roe will buckle under the weight of reason. “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible,” notes Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun (author of Roe) and supporter of legalized abortion. The U.S. Constitution cannot plausibly or rationally be said to include a right to abortion that precludes states dealing with this issue. Even the Court itself, when narrowly upholding Roe in 1992 (in Planned Parenthood v. Casey), could appeal only to stare decisis (i.e., past decisions should be reaffirmed because they are past decisions) and to virtual nonsense about “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Roe will buckle under the weight of democracy. The Court in Roe, without constitutional warrant, usurped the authority of the American people to determine abortion policy. This “exercise of raw judicial power,” as Justice Byron White put it, struck down the democratically-decided abortion laws of all 50 states and imposed a nationwide policy of abortion on demand whether the people like it or not. The radical extent of the Roe regime was not and has never been even remotely consistent with public opinion (polling on this question is often inaccurate, and ignorance of the extent of Roe is widespread). Roe has disenfranchised millions of Americans, fostering divisive cultural and political battles.

Finally, and most importantly, Roe will buckle under the weight of human rights. It decided that an entire class of innocent human beings must be excluded from legal protection and allowed to be killed for any reason. Roe, like Dred Scott v. Sandford before it, is profoundly unjust and contrary to the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of all members of the human family. And the consequences of the Court’s folly—55 million unborn human beings killed, many women (and men) hurt emotionally, psychologically, physically—have been nothing less than catastrophic.

Full text

Obama’s HHS Mandate labeled as anti-motherhood, threat to religious freedom

In recent months, the mandate has become the subject of dozens of lawsuits from over 200 plaintiffs arguing that it forces them to violate their deeply-held religious convictions. While houses of worship and their affiliated organizations are not required to provide the coverage, other religious non-profits are subject to a modified version of the regulation, and for-profit companies run by religious individuals receive no protection at all.

Dr. Marguerite Duane, a family practitioner in Washington, D.C., told CNA that “women should not bear the burden” of the medical side effects of contraceptives and abortion, stressing that “it takes two to plan a family.”

Under the mandate, she argued, “childbearing is seen as a curse instead of as a gift to society,” and this attitude “does not help women, it harms women.”

“The HHS mandate is completely unjust: it goes against women, it goes against good healthcare, and most importantly, it goes against the right to religious freedom.”

Read more

Editor’s note: What passes for “feminism” in today’s world is nothing more than the radical agenda of a relatively small number of politically connected, self-loathing women.