In his February 2 op-ed, Charles Krauthammer explains former senator Harry Reid's mistake, "Thank God For Harry Reid." Thinking that the ends justify the means, Harry Reid took steps that the Democrats are now bitterly regretting.
The moral of the story is that process matters. A lot. I am reminded of the 1973 SCOTUS decision, Roe v Wade, which the Leftists and Democrats may come to regret in the same way they are already regretting Harry Reid. Allow me to explain.
Before 1973, abortion was governed by state law, and legality was a matter of degree. Nowhere was abortion totally illegal. Every state allowed abortion for some reasons, like rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The main problem was abortions of convenience. About 15 states, including NYS, were quite liberal about abortions of convenience, and many other states not so much. Although this, too, was a matter of degree. Women could travel for an abortion. Yes, I get it, it is a hurdle. For some women less of a hurdle and for some, more. For some, an insurmountable hurdle.
It remains that abortion was more or less available to a lot of women. And---very important---the trend was towards more liberalization of abortion laws. However, this was a slow process and the Leftists were impatient. Roe v Wade was the short cut through the state legislatures, and the Leftists may come to learn the meaning of that old saying, "Short cuts make for long journeys."
Two types of people object to Roe v Wade: Christians and conservatives. The two are frequently, and wrongly, conflated. Lots of Christians are not conservative (with rare exception, anytime you make somebody else's personal business your business, probably you are not a conservative), and lots of conservatives are not Christian.
For the Christians, the issue is the life of the child, an issue not to be lightly dismissed. Conservatives have another problem altogether with Roe v Wade.
The argument for Roe v Wade is that abortion is a Constitutional right. The problem is that the Constitution is entirely silent on this topic. The Constitution is a miraculous document, but it is silent on very many things, abortion among them. If the Constitution is silent on your pet idea, then you cannot escape the heavy lifting of talking to your fellow citizens, trying to persuade them, and making law. A long, slow process with no guarantee for success.
So, if the Constitution is silent on the subject, on what was Roe based? Penumbras. In the 1965 Griswold case involving Planned Parenthood, the precursor to Roe, Justice William O. Douglas "stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area."
Penumbras? Emanations? Really? Is this law? What does it mean? I think, penumbra means that the law says whatever I want it to say. And there's the rub. Leftists are not the only people who can see penumbras. Donald Trump can see penumbras. The justices he appoints to the SCOTUS can see penumbras.
As a conservative, I'm telling you that once you open that door, you may not like what walks through.
I feel very sure that Democrats are already regretting Harry Reid and his "nuclear option." That is Krauthammer's point. Neill Gorsuch is a sure thing for the SCOTUS. And, if President Trump gets one or two (or three) more appointments, Democrats may well come to regret constitutional penumbras.
PS: Leftists, don't hold your breath. If President Trump builds that wall, or anything like it, he will be a two term president, and penumbras will be the fabric of your nightmares.
You should not have opened that door.
No comments:
Post a Comment