Wednesday, February 04, 2004
FT June/July 2003: The Women of Roe v. Wade
"The second factor that enabled the radical character of these decisions to pass under the radar is that most people just couldn’t believe the Supreme Court would do such a thing. When I have explained the extreme permissiveness of American abortion law to people, one of the most common reactions is: “That can’t be right.” I’ve found that most people—including many law professors—have a great deal of difficulty wrapping their minds around the idea that the Court would permit the intentional destruction of a healthy infant who was capable of living outside his or her mother’s body, when the mother’s health (in the ordinary meaning of that word) is not in serious danger. That’s why polls show that the same people who say they approve of Roe v. Wade also say they believe that abortion should not be permitted except for grave reasons, and that it should never be permitted after viability except to save the mother’s life."
Fascinating history lesson, as well as a future projection.
We live in a country with the most extreme abortion laws in the world, and the Democratic candidates to a man don't think they're extreme enough. Something's wrong here.
Fascinating history lesson, as well as a future projection.
We live in a country with the most extreme abortion laws in the world, and the Democratic candidates to a man don't think they're extreme enough. Something's wrong here.