Google+
Close

Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

My Senate Testimony on Roe v. Wade



Text  



On the sad occasion of this 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, permit me to highlight my Senate testimony from June 2005. Here’s an excerpt from near the beginning:

Roe is the Dred Scott of our age.

Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship.

Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people.

Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states.

Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth.

Roe fuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion.

Roe disenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life—warrants significant governmental protection of the lives of unborn human beings.

Part 2 includes sharp criticisms of Roe from liberals who support legal abortion. Part 4 exposes myths about Roe. And part 5 discusses the Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which “Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter combined to produce a joint majority opinion so breathtaking in its grandiose misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role that it makes one long for the sterile incoherence of Blackmun’s opinion in Roe.”



Text  


Subscribe to National Review