Pro-Choicers Also Oppose 'Roe v. Wade'

I recently had a chance to attend the official Presidential Inauguration - an exciting opportunity that just arose a week in advance, and for which some of us CRs had to scramble to make plans for. Despite the difficulties that we had to overcome in order to make this one-in-a-lifetime experience a reality, we were able to make the most of this opportunity, and we had a great time in D.C., watching history being made.

I may do a subsequent entry in this column, commenting on our experiences at this event, and about the incredible things that happened in connection to this. For this entry, however, I wanted to focus on a major contemporary issue relating to another event that occurred, in the same location, just a few days after the Inauguration.

On the Friday after Inauguration Day, a couple of us from the College Republicans in Illinois were invited to go to our Congressman's office, and to receive a free tour of the U.S. Capitol. While that was happening, we had an unexpected opportunity to actually meet our Congressman, Mr. Ray LaHood, who came to meet another group of students (high schoolers from Peoria Notre Dame), who were there for the Inauguration and for the annual "March for Life" rally, to take place on the following Monday. I think that that event is scheduled in late January every year, to coincide with the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

As a result of what I saw at the Capitol (Congressman LaHood invited us into the U.S. House gallery and spoke to the Notre Dame high schoolers there - I was happy to hear him say that he has a "100% pro-life" record... especially since he is considering a run for Governor), and with all the other recent news and opinion on this issue, I was reminded of an interesting e-mail that I sent out a couple of years ago, relating to this subject.

Since I am quite short on time right now, I thought that for this post, I would re-print that e-mail, which was to the discussion list of the Illinois Republican Liberty Caucus. It has to do with the legal aspect of this issue - I had to be focused on that topic back when I wrote this e-mail, because I was planning to do a paper on it. Now, I think that this discussion is especially relevant, due to the recent [32nd] anniversary, and the fact that tensions have been recently rising over this matter, in response to the results of the federal elections of 2002 and 2004.

Here is an edited version of that e-mail message, followed by some additional resources on this topic.

Sunday, April 14, 2002

From: Apollo711@a...
Date: Sun Apr 14, 2002 2:38 pm
Subject: Pro-choicers oppose Roe v. Wade

For my school research paper, I am considering doing a persuasive paper against Roe vs. Wade. This paper will not focus on the pro-life argument, however; it will instead present the argument against Roe v. Wade from a constitutional perspective. There are many pro-choice people who oppose Roe v. Wade on the grounds that it represents judicial activism, and violates states' rights. For instance, 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Harry Browne, who is pro-choice, said that, as President, the justices he appointed would most probably be judges who realized that Roe v. Wade was a mistake. I wrote about this in my March 9th message to this discussion list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rlc-illinois-discuss/message/457

Below is one of the articles that I might use as source. It is from over a year ago, but I thought you might find it interesting.


By Jeremy Lott
January 23, 2001

http://www.deviantreadings.com/012301.html

Jan. 23

Roe colored glasses

On Jan. 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court did an abominable thing. By a vote of seven to two, justices stewed flawed interpretations of several amendments together to create an unlimited right to abortion, thus authorizing the snuffing out of millions of unborn children. Feminists applauded, Republicans harrumphed and the then-'moderate' Southern Baptist Convention gave them a firm pat on the back. Roe v. Wade quickly became the settled law of the land.

Dissenting Kennedy appointee Byron White, who has since retired, recognized it as the monstrosity that it was, declaring the decision an "illegitimate" ruling. Roe was the only such case of all the trials that he presided over that he described with contempt. Even abortion rights supporters recognize that overreach was involved. Witness a slew of liberal columnists who've inveighed against all or aspects of it: Mickey Kaus, Michael Kinsley, Nat Hentoff, Richard Cohen...

Full article by Jeremy Lott available here; his weblog is here.

There is a great deal more that I could say about this issue, but for now, I am just going to provide a few other articles with background information on this subject:

From RightGrrl! Carolyn Gargaro:
Roe v. Wade: The Unconstitutional Decision

From Nick Blesch, Hoosier Review:
"While I am pro-choice (unlike many if not all of my co-bloggers), I am no fan of the Roe v. Wade decision, which was unarguably the work of an extremely activist court."

From Harry Browne:
Harry Browne's stand on Abortion

From Michael Kinsley, Washington Post:
"Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching."

From David V., Left2Right:
Let Roe Go: Liberals should abandon Roe v. Wade

From William L. Anderson, LewRockwell.com:
The Usurpation Called Roe v. Wade
The Political Classes Have Destroyed the Declaration of Independence
"Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" both wrong: Abortion law should be left to the states

From Mary Beliveau, Pennsylvania Pro-life Federation:
Roe v. Wade decision must be overturned

From Mac Johnson, Human Events:
Roe v. Wade v. America


I just found this recent item from the Eagle Forum's "Court Watch":
Jan. 25, 2005:
Why Roe Must Go: The Re-filing of Roe v. Wade

Mrs. Schlafly (of the Eagle Forum) also has a recent book out on this topic:
The Supremacists
The Tyranny of Judges -- and How to Stop It

Please also check out the following excellent essay by constitutionalist Joe Sobran:
How Tyranny Came to America

Mr. Sobran's July 10, 2003 column comments on the issue of judicial activism, in the wake of the Court's rulings on Michigan's affirmative action cases and the Texas sodomy statute. This column of his from about a year ago is about the same subject, but in connection with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. I recall that the excellent writer La Shawn Barber also wrote about this, as did conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan.

This is a great deal more material than I originally intended to include in this entry (that happens sometimes :-)... But I hope that this perhaps gives some people a new perspective on this contensious debate. I believe that whether one is pro-life, or favors legalized abortion, we should all agree that the Roe v. Wade decision was incorrectly written, and was an example of creative writing and unconstitutional law-making by those who are not supposed to have that kind of power. If our Founders had envisioned that the federal judges of today would come this far away from the actual text and intentions of the Constitution, then would they have allowed for those judges to serve for life?

While their past actions have not given us much reason for optimism regarding this, let us hope and pray that our national leaders will have the courage, wisdom, and respect for morality and the rule of law that will lead them to place better jurists on the federal bench. If that happens, then we just may see atrocious injustices such as Roe v. Wade and other judicial misdoings rectified during our lifetimes.

Posted by Aakash at January 31, 2005 11:38 PM