Redefining the Mainstream

That's how the always lucid Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report summarizes the likely impact of John Roberts on the Supreme Court. Barone's analysis is, as always, comprehensive and worth reading (here is the link). Yet, as Barone points out, even with Roberts on the court, there will still be, at least, a 5 to 4 majority for Roe v. Wade.

But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Roe and its progeny can be undermined by pushing on the edges. O'Connor, to her everlasting disgrace, voted to strike down state laws banning partial birth abortion (contrary to the cheap accolades permeating the media, I have never been, even slightly, tempted to associate Sandra Day O'Connor with judicial brilliance of any kind; she is one of thousands of mediocre judges and lawyers who are the unfortunate norm in my former profession). If Roberts votes to uphold state bans on partial birth abortion, we are heading in the right direction: recognizing the humanity of the partially born child. By banning partial birth abortion, the truth about legal abortion is thunderously clear: the only distinction between murder and legal abortion is the location of the body. And if location is too irrational a basis for allowing legal killing, then we are forced to recognize the truth that a unique human person is continuously and ineluctably developing from the point of fertilization.

We yearn, with great hope, for the day when the Supreme Court proclaims the undeniable: the unborn child is a legal person entitled to all the legal protections of any other legal person. We certainly have sane ways of taking care of the needs and circumstances of the mother without engaging in the barbaric and primitive solution of murdering the innocent--a solution which also severely and forever harms the mother. Judge Roberts will, from all indications, bring us closer to that great day.