Tuesday, December 07, 2004

A Plan For Pro-Life Victory

In hashing out the pragmatist/idealist argument on various comment boards online, I hear a lot of argument that our idealism is too vague, too indefinite, too long-range to form a basis for GOP strategy.

I put forward the following series of concrete steps achievable in the short-term:

Exercise the nuclear option. Do this immediately after the new Senate is seated. Do not bother negotiating a pledge from Dems not to filibuster nominees; they would violate that pledge as soon as we nominate an "extremist". Unilaterally strip that option from them and any future minority, GOP or Donkey.

Stack the Court with strict constructionists. Don't bother trying to win support or commendation or respect from the Dems, the liberal media, or liberal academia. They want a Court that will overturn laws based on European jurisprudence and seal off cultural issues from legislatures; they say so openly. Either they are granted agreeable judges or they aren't; if they aren't they will raise Hell. Confound them. Select and confirm our sort of judges, the ones who recognize that not every answer is contained within the Constitution; that federalism has a purpose; and that the country cannot be ruled by judicial fiat. Pass every judge on a 51-50 vote if need be. We need not apologize for ensuring the public, not the courts, decide the laws.

Pass federal bans on abortion techniques.
With 5 strict constructionists on the Court, a challenge to such a law will only result in the complete reversal of Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and Casey v Planned Parenthood. Abortion would be thrown back to the legislatures. So either the new restrictions are immediately challenged or not, we win. Eventually a case will arrive at the Court and we will be able to fight out abortion in 50 state legislatures and in Congress.

I'd expect people to argue these steps shouldn't be done. But can anyone argue they can't be done?


Jeff said...

Since polls have shown consistent majority support for 30 years for both the death penalty AND limited abortion rights, this is a morally admirable stance that also amounts to political suicide

The Yell said...

Well, plenty of pro-life politicians are being elected, so I don't think it can be called suicidal.
It's notable that even in 1995, with majorities in both houses and the White House, the Democrats could not pass a Freedom of Choice Act.
Insisting that a committment to democracy and limited government means the Court recognize to power of Congress and the states to define access to abortion is not an extreme position. It would open the door for continued debate on abortion on many different levels, with some defeats in different regions, but on the whole I don't think it's a suicidal position to defend.