So asked Charles Krauthammer in a Washington Post Op-ed piece a week ago Friday (September 16). He goes on to explain that, even though he himself favors legalized abortion, he thinks the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision have been terrible for the Republic:
Set aside for a moment your thoughts on the substance of the ruling. (I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion.) I'm talking about the continuing damage to the republic: disenfranchising, instantly and without recourse, an enormous part of the American population; preventing, as even Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, proper political settlement of the issue by the people and their representatives; making us the only nation in the West to have legalized abortion by judicial fiat rather than by the popular will expressed democratically.Actually, I think the damge is even worse that Krauthammer realizes. Roe did not, by any means, disenfranchise anyone. Those who hate abortion are still free to vote and have done so in ever increasing numbers, culminating in the re-election of Geroge Bush in 2004 despite a four-year record of deceipt and ineptitude that was almost mind-boggling. Had it not been for Roe, it is very possible that there would be no Christian Right as a political entity. Had there been no Roe, something other than morality might well be the deciding factor in national elections.
And, worse yet, it is very likely that abortion would probably be legal in many if not most jurisdictions.
One needs to ask if it was worth it.
1 comment:
My response is limited as I spent the last open hour at this coffee shop on my little war rant a few posts back, but, again and unfortunately, I agree with you. "Morality" needs to be taken from the equation. At least the skewed version that's running things right now. I just can't stomach the thought that our current leadership was elected on "moral" grounds.
OK, I must go before they kick me out. Hope to find more coffee shop time soon...and an argument with you. :)
Post a Comment