A reading of columnist Chuck Malloy’s cautions about overturning present U.S. policy of open season on the unborn brings home the flimsiness of pro-abortion argumentation. On the one hand, he says to reverse Roe vs. Wade would be inconsistent for Republicans as an example of “judicial activism”?
Judicial activism! In 1973 the Supreme Court created an entirely imaginary right to abortion out of ...what? A “right to privacy”, which itself is not so much as mentioned in the Constitution. Such a smoke screen can also be used to protect everything from child abuse through torture of animals to cannibalism.
On the other hand, your columnist warns that reversing Roe vs. Wade would be an unwise move toward “unpredictability” in the laws. Well, by the same token, there should be no new laws, no review, repeal, revision or correction of laws whatsoever. In other words, we here have an implicit claim to the infallibility of judges and lawmakers.
And of course, the whole column fusses and fritters in the corners and closes the eyes to the elephant in the room: are unborn fetuses human beings? The column’s reasoning is not something to be proud of.