Reactions to Carhart, V

I don't think they're saying they're unhappy with the ruling, Brian, they're saying that Dobson is misrepresenting what the decision actually says in a way that is harmful to the cause. That's how I read it, at least.

Hi, Bob;
Nice to have you visit. :) I can't speak for the others, but I'm both stubborn and factual. ;) With regard to the observation that "[a]fter Dr. Dobson?s many years of dedicated ministry, it is not surprising that many pro-lifers disapprove of our confronting him," and that "[i]f we are wrong, we deserve their criticism"; I think that it's virtually always valid to raise objections, publicly as needs must, even when it means criticizing an ally. When someone's heart is in the right place but they're perhaps not doing as much good as they think they are, and particularly on this of all issues, I think it's right and fair to speak up. So even if I thought you were wrong, in this case I'd defend your action.

With that said, I would sound one note of slight disagreement with your comment. I'm not sure that Carhart is an evil ruling, in that Carhart does not approve methods of abortion other than intact D&E so much as it says that Congress was within its power to enact this legisation. This is not ideal. It isn't a full-throated repudiation of Roe. But it is, at least, a map of the minefield that gives state legislators a fairly good indication of how far they can go in restraining abortion and keep Justice Kennedy's vote. Moreover, while the legislation does not go far enough, and might be characterized as permitting evil in that regard, had it gone further it would not have survived the Supreme Court's scrutiny.

So long as this ruling is regarded as a call to arms rather than a set of laurels to rest upon, I think it's to the good.

In some ways, it strikes me that the ruling is similar to Washington's crossing of the Delaware. In many ways, the victory at Trenton was a fairly limited victory, in the big picture. If Jim Dobson had said "wonderful! Washington has defeated the Hessians! Now we can all go home," then that would have been unhelpful. Nevertheless, while the victory was itself narrow, Trenton came after a long string of defeats and catastrophes, and Washington's victory was a massive shot in the arm to the cause of independence; it kept hope alive, made the country believe that it could beat overwhelming odds. In that regard, I think Brian raises a good point, and I concede that this is probably all Dobson's trying to do with regard to Carhart (albeit in an overstated manner).

The bottom line, I think, is that it is vital that the pro-life movement continue to vigorously engage at the Federal level to the extent that we aren't going anywhere without a fifth vote on the Supreme Court, and at the state level in supporting restrictions on abortion. However, I would strongly urge the view that less death is less death; a narrowly drawn law that attacks the problem incrementally but that survives judicial review and is subsequently built on by further restrictions is better than a broadly-drawn law that is struck down. Less death is still less death, and even if the goal is to eliminate abortion entirely, as a matter of engaging with the real world, reaching that goal in steps is the only way to advance, in my view.

Finally, I would a hypocrite (and I know Brian would spot it) if I didn't at least briefly disagree that a judge should not "violate God's enduring command." The obligation of a federal judge is to the Constituton and laws of the United States. If the people of the United States elect a Congress which passes a law in violation of God's enduring command, you are on solid ground if you urge that Congress should repeal it - but if that law is within the powers of the Congress of the United States as delineated by the Constitution of the United States, a federal judge has no more power to strike it down should it violating God's enduring command than she does should it for violating the latest liberal talking points. I can't subscribe to the Aquinian view that lex malla, lex nulla. Like Robert Bork, I don't deny that there is a natural law, or that positive law should resemble it, but like Bork, I do say at the determination of whether a given right is guaranteed by natural law, and that it therefore should be protected by positive law, is a question for legislatures, not courts. This isn't moral relativism, it's a question of what one believes the power of judges and courts should be under our system of government. And my view is that our constitution does not give the federal judiciary license to engraft their views - no matter how admirable or deplorable those views may be - onto the Constitution. On this point, I very respectfully dissent.