2008 Woodie Awards
Continuing the Discussion of Presidential Candidates and Pro-Life Politics
Spencer Hutchins
Issue date: 2/1/08 Section: Opinion
Editor,
The premise of Spencer Hutchins' article, "The Giuliani Question," is incorrect. There is an additional way to undo Roe v. Wade, and that is to take away from the Supreme Court any jurisdiction over abortion, which can be accomplished by a simple act of Congress. Ron Paul has made this approach the centerpiece of his anti-abortion plan.
The benefit is that this course of action returns legislative powers over abortion to the states, the taking of which was a gross usurpation by the Court. This seems a workable strategy, since many states have anti-abortion majorities that are currently helpless against the "Supreme Veto," and their Congressional representatives would be responsive to these majorities. One can be confident that many states would subsequently respond by making abortion illegal, saving many lives, to be sure, but also allowing anti-abortion forces to concentrate their efforts in states where the battle really needs to be fought.
I could spend pages abominating the particulars of Giuliani's person, record, and positions, but this is not the place. What I would suggest to all "single-issue" voters (I am not using this term pejoratively) is that the mainstream of the GOP has actually done absolutely nothing, in spite of many years holding the Executive Branch and Congressional majorities, to reverse Roe v. Wade. And why should they? They keep getting the pro-life votes in spite of their inaction.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Perry
Parent of Gonzaga Alumni
Spencer Hutchins responds:
Mr. Perry brings up some interesting points for consideration. He is right in suggesting that Congress can pursue other avenues of addressing abortion. Indeed, Ron Paul has introduced legislation, the so-called "We the People Act," to remove abortion from the Court's purview. The gentleman is correct that I did not include in my article this additional means of action. But that is only because it is wholly impracticable.
The premise of Spencer Hutchins' article, "The Giuliani Question," is incorrect. There is an additional way to undo Roe v. Wade, and that is to take away from the Supreme Court any jurisdiction over abortion, which can be accomplished by a simple act of Congress. Ron Paul has made this approach the centerpiece of his anti-abortion plan.
The benefit is that this course of action returns legislative powers over abortion to the states, the taking of which was a gross usurpation by the Court. This seems a workable strategy, since many states have anti-abortion majorities that are currently helpless against the "Supreme Veto," and their Congressional representatives would be responsive to these majorities. One can be confident that many states would subsequently respond by making abortion illegal, saving many lives, to be sure, but also allowing anti-abortion forces to concentrate their efforts in states where the battle really needs to be fought.
I could spend pages abominating the particulars of Giuliani's person, record, and positions, but this is not the place. What I would suggest to all "single-issue" voters (I am not using this term pejoratively) is that the mainstream of the GOP has actually done absolutely nothing, in spite of many years holding the Executive Branch and Congressional majorities, to reverse Roe v. Wade. And why should they? They keep getting the pro-life votes in spite of their inaction.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Perry
Parent of Gonzaga Alumni
Spencer Hutchins responds:
Mr. Perry brings up some interesting points for consideration. He is right in suggesting that Congress can pursue other avenues of addressing abortion. Indeed, Ron Paul has introduced legislation, the so-called "We the People Act," to remove abortion from the Court's purview. The gentleman is correct that I did not include in my article this additional means of action. But that is only because it is wholly impracticable.
Be the first to comment on this story