During her recent visit to University of Chicago Law School, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believed that Roe v. Wade was a “disappointing decision,” because it went “too far, too fast” in liberalizing abortion laws — not because it allows millions of innocent children to be legally murdered each year.
To that effect, Ginsburg reasoned that the Court should have practiced more judicial restraint to allow expansion of abortion access at the state level through legislative means. According to Ginsburg, had the Court ruled less broadly in favor of access to abortion (based on the “Constitutional right to privacy”), it would have allowed public opinion in favor of abortion to develop through the political process as a women’s rights issue at a time when the winds of change were already blowing in that direction. Instead, she argues, the Court’s sudden sweeping decision galvanized the Pro-Life movement around opposition to Roe v. Wade, which halted that change.
To some extent, I must agree with Justice Ginsburg…
Roe v. Wade was and still is a disappointing decision. Yet it has driven the impetus of the Pro-Life movement for the past 40 years.
But what’s Ginsburg really getting at?
In June the Supreme Court will rule on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Will the highest court of the land go too far, too fast in rendering its decision in favor of homosexual marriage? Or is Ginsburg suggesting that her vote will side with the decision that leaves the elected officials at the state level to determine their laws?
I suppose we will find out in June. Right now, I am interested in your opinion. What’s best for America, right now?