Abortion Illusions
By Hugh Dawson

What is it that makes liberals go berserk over losing Roe v. Wade? Does the idea of not murdering 10’s of thousands of infants leave a void in their lives? Perhaps they are contrarians and whatever conservatives are for they are against. As usual, liberals cannot see side effects so they are ignoring the economic boom coming to liberal states when women flock to those states to get their abortions. One writer suggested the liberals just wanted to keep abortion as a campaign issue.

Let’s go back and take a brief look at how the “right” to an abortion was “found” in the Constitution. First note that the word abortion or something similar does not appear in the Constitution. One rational was that the right to privacy found in the 14th amendment permits abortions. Well, if that’s okay, then I can shoot my cranky neighbor and get away with it as long as I do it in private.

Hold on, there’s more. Another rational was that the right to abortions was found emanating from a penumbra. There, doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? What’s a penumbra you ask, as I did. It’s the partially shaded outer region of a shadow cast by an opaque object. Don’t ask me to show you where this penumbra can be found in the Constitution.

How could such trivial reasoning have withstood all the attempts to change it until all these years and dead babies had passed.

A person named Charles Tate sent in an excellent comment: “Very interesting was Justice Thomas’ concurrence where he urged overruling all of the court’s opinions based on the shaky (and incomprehensible) concept of “substantive due process”. Of course he is correct but that will not happen today. His opinions are doubly interesting I think because they display his long years on the court and his own mature judgment. Unlike most judicial opinions, Thomas’ are nearly devoid of self aggrandizement and focus on the issue in a serious mature manner. I hope he continues to bless us with his gifts for a long time to come.”

Footnote: A couple of reactions to the Court’s recent decisions appear ominous to me. They told the EPA it couldn’t write regulations that exceeded it’s legislative authority. The EPA is ignoring the Court’s order. Secondly, New York’s legislature immediately passed a new law to replace the old one which the Court threw out and the new law prohibits carrying a gun for protection as much as the old law; it just uses a different approach.

This begs the question; whose job is it to enforce the Court’s decisions?