If 'Roe' Were Overturned
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B06
Understandably cynical about "ukases from the federal judiciary," George F. Will seems unduly fixated on California in concluding that reversing Roe v. Wade would hardly cause a ripple in abortion's status quo ["Abortion's 'So-What' Factor," op-ed, Oct. 28].
Granting Mr. Will's point that the doctrine of stare decisis poses a potential roadblock to a jurisprudential revolution, one can still hope that a case with all the logic of the Dred Scott slavery decision cannot long endure.
|
Discussion Policy Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. |
Eventually the people will prevail. As with slavery, Americans regret the injustice of abortion on demand. A Gallup poll released in June showed that an overwhelming (2-to-1) majority of Americans consider it "morally wrong."
If a revival of federalism sent the abortion issue back to the states, states such as Virginia would not be likely to follow the Left Coast's lead in denying the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the unborn. Overturning the injustice of Roe would result in a network of safe-haven states where inalienable rights and equal protection are accorded to all members of the human race.
JONATHAN IMBODY
Vice President for Government Relations
Christian Medical Association
Bristol, Tenn.


