Amy Holmes & Sarah Palin [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From a pro-life friend:
Thanks to Amy Holmes for the excellent commentary on how conservative pro-choice and pro-life women actually work together on so many issues and have a mutual respect for each other and limited government. As a pro-life woman, the thing about this that drives me crazy is that the real issue is who decides – unelected judges or the American people through their elected representatives. If Roe v. Wade were overturned not a whole lot would change as to legality – so Chris Matthews’ hysteria about Sarah Palin would BAN ABORTION FOR ALL WOMEN AT ANY TIME EVEN RAPE AND INCEST – is so over the top crazy. All conservatives would do is have judges who would not feel the need to legislate from the bench.
Once the legislators had at the issue – they would end up where the people are and that would probably be a bit right of where we are now – stricter bans on late term abortion, more parental involvement, more waiting periods or advisements. Maybe Utah would limit more severely, but California would be wide open. The abortion industry wouldn’t quite be booming but it would be available. The only way more restrictions would be in place would be if hearts and minds were changed to a dramatic degree where the political class could survive. Thus, the job of pro-lifers will be Herculean efforts to change those hearts and minds if we want the laws changed. The democratic process would work and we wouldn’t have an almighty court that thinks they should be the arbiters on life and death issues. That is a result with which pro-choice and pro-lifers could pretty peacefully co-exist. It’s actually the reality in Europe where abortion is harder to get after 3 months and there are more health advisories in the first three. Ireland bans it but there aren’t women throwing themselves off towers – they get to London. The democratic process works pretty well when we let it.
08/30 12:59 PM
