(Note. While the L.A. Times did not have their own editorial in yesterday's paper, it can be fairly stated that they allowed an Op-Ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, to act as the paper's editorial.)
Dean Chemerinsky: "Roe vs. Wade was overruled not because of anything about its reasoning or any method of judicial interpretation but because Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 and was able to appoint three justices to fulfill his promise to...end abortion rights." This is not the first time that I have been disappointed by Dean Chemerinsky. (See the post on Kyle Rittenhouse.) A look at the prior post reveals there were, in fact, criticisms of the Roe Court's reasoning and judicial interpretation - even by those on the Left.
Dean Chemerinsky complained that in Dobbs the Court wanted to leave the decision making on abortion to the political process, yet had no hesitation in declaring a New York State law passed in 1911 as being unconstitutional, and not deferring to the political process in that case. (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, in which the Court held that the Second Amendment provided for a right to keep and bear arms.) Is the Dean kidding? There is an express constitutional provision - the Second Amendment - discussing guns. Where is the express constitutional provision discussing abortion? I expect better, especially from the Dean of one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.
A look at the letters to the editor. "A fetus now has greater rights than any woman or girl of reproductive age." I wonder if the writer acknowledges any point in the pregnancy when the fetus/baby gains any rights. And this letter: "The U.S. is now officially a third-world country with a draconian Supreme Court." I have actually felt that I live in a third-world country just by watching the news and driving around the city, and seeing people living on the streets everywhere. And I do mean everywhere.
And this letter: "With most abortions now achieved through medication rather than a procedure, I bid you good luck trying to stop them. You're going to need it." That fact is supported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
In an article inside the paper, the Times asserts that Republicans will push federal legislation to ban abortions nationwide. And, they state that bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to do just that. Although, they point out that the Senate bill has only 19 supporters, and the House bill has only 164 - both far short of the number for passage. Meanwhile, some Democrats want the Congress to pass a federal law, while the Democrats still have the majority, permitting abortion throughout the country. I believe they are both wrong.
The general police power resides with the states. That is why state governors, and not the President, decided when and if to have lockdowns due to Covid. Under what provision in the Constitution or federal law, does Congress have the power to make a federal law on abortion? And how disappointing would it be to see Republicans arguing for that power, when a conservative Court just said the opposite. And I understand that many Democrats do not believe that the federal government should have any limitations on its powers. Apparently Senator Schumer was unable to get all 50 Democratic Senators to support his bill, which Senator John Cornyn asserts would allow for abortion up to the due date, at least in certain instances. And Senator Manchin said the proposal does not codify Roe, but seeks to expand it.
In another article inside the paper, they quote President Biden fighting back against a threat by some red states to make it illegal for women to leave that state and go to another state in order to get an abortion. If any state makes it illegal to travel from their no abortion state to a pro abortion state, that is outrageous. I have long believed that there is an understood right to travel between the states, which can be supported by at least a couple of constitutional provisions. Besides, we live in the USA, not the USSR. We believe in liberty - not using the threat of law to keep people locked in place. I cannot imagine a more anti-conservative position than trying to ban freedom of travel.
No comments:
Post a Comment