Over at Public Discourse, Josh Craddock has an interesting essay on what pro-life lawmakers in Congress might consider doing if the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization this term. Josh and I don’t see precisely eye to eye on every line item of such an agenda, but he offers a lot of valuable ideas well worth considering. Some amount of disagreement among pro-lifers is normal and perhaps even a good thing; it’s important for the pro-life movement to consider a wide range of prudential options for building a post-Roe America that respects the dignity of every human life. From his essay:
In addition to legislation that tangibly supports families and expectant mothers, legislators should introduce strong anti-abortion legislation that recognizes the personhood of the unborn, strips federal courts of jurisdiction over the statute, and empowers individuals to enforce it through a private right of action. And if such strong medicine is too politically impracticable, pro-life legislators should at the very least tax abortion providers and abortion-pill manufacturers as a mechanism for promoting a pro-life social policy.
I’m especially intrigued by his proposal that Congress use its taxing power to cripple the abortion industry. He’s right to note that, at least for now, more-expansive abortion limitations are unlikely to be politically feasible at the national level. The proposal to use taxing power in the meantime is a smart one: “Just as Congress’s taxing power has been used to all-but prohibit automatic firearms and to effectively require individuals to purchase health insurance, a special ‘sin tax’ on abortion providers and abortion-pill manufacturers (perhaps $2,500 for each abortion performed or pill prescribed) could—consistent with Supreme Court precedent—regulate individual behavior and cripple the abortion industry.”
Much of Josh’s piece is worthy of further thought, and though I don’t know that I agree with all of his proposals, his conclusion is right on the mark: “After decades of tragedy and intense efforts, grassroots pro-life voters expect their elected representatives to do everything in their constitutional power to protect life. Pro-life legislators should seize the opportunity to enact a post-Roe legislative agenda that both empowers parents to raise their children and effectively prohibits abortion. Both goals are well within Congress’s constitutional power.”
Or, as he puts it in a subheading, “inaction is unacceptable.” Pro-lifers are unlikely to agree on every law or policy that Congress should enact once Roe and Casey are gone, but we all must agree that ceding ground to abortion supporters — who will immediately move to enshrine the precepts of Roe into law at the federal and state levels, as well as through the use of executive power — isn’t an option. In the conclusion of our book out this June, Ryan Anderson and I offer some of our own ideas for building a pro-life future, with a dual focus on both politics and culture.