
Poland implements income tax incentives for families
Bridget Sielicki
·We are urgently seeking 500 new Life Defenders (monthly supporters) before the end of October to help save babies from abortion 365 days a year. Your first gift as a Life Defender today will be DOUBLED. Click here to make your monthly commitment.
Pro-choice constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz says abortion rights isn’t in U.S. Constitution
Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz is not only one of the country’s most prolific legal commentators, he’s also one of the few to gain fans on both sides of the aisle. That’s because, despite being a self-professed liberal, Dershowitz exercises greater objectivity than most of his ideological brethren.
And he recently displayed that objectivity on CNBC. On Monday, he told Larry Kudlow:
I can’t find anything in the Constitution that says you prefer the life of the mother, or the convenience of the mother if it’s an abortion by choice, over the potential life of the fetus. Look, I think women if they’re required to not have abortions could die and could — so I favor a woman’s right to choose. But I can’t find it in the Constitution. And everything I favor I don’t think is necessarily constitutionally based.
As a policy matter, Dershowitz is tragically wrong – the fetus’s life is actual, not potential, and pro-life principles do not mean that women must continue truly life-threatening pregnancies – but it’s refreshing that he refrains from using judicial malpractice to get what he wants.
Dear Reader,
Every day in America, more than 2,800 preborn babies lose their lives to abortion.
That number should break our hearts and move us to action.
Ending this tragedy requires daily commitment from people like you who refuse to stay silent.
Millions read Live Action News each month — imagine the impact if each of us took a stand for life 365 days a year.
Right now, we’re urgently seeking 500 new Life Defenders (monthly donors) to join us before the end of October. And thanks to a generous $250,000 matching grant, your first monthly gift will be DOUBLED to help save lives and build a culture that protects the preborn.
Will you become one of the 500 today? Click here now to become a Live Action Life Defender and have your first gift doubled.
Together, we can end abortion and create a future where every child is cherished and every mother is supported.
This isn’t the first time Dershowitz has made this point; in 2001, he wrote that “clear governing constitutional principles” were “not present” in Roe v. Wade, and that “[j]udges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy),” making abortion an issue “more appropriately left to the political process.”
Indeed. Whenever the Constitution mentions the central “right” Roe hinges on, privacy, it can’t even be remotely construed as applicable to abortion. And the rest of the ruling makes a mockery of logic, law, history, and science:
First, the Constitution doesn’t define person, but the Constitution doesn’t define privacy either. The Supreme Court applied a double standard in Roe, arbitrarily giving the word person a narrow definition and the word privacy a broad definition in order to rationalize its decision to legalize abortion-on-demand. Second, if a fetus isn’t a person because the provisions of the Constitution don’t apply to a fetus, then infants aren’t persons either, because the provisions also don’t apply to infants. Or adolescents in some instances. Third, it’s irrelevant if state abortion laws were less restrictive in the past. Many laws were less restrictive in the past. And it’s irrelevant if state abortion laws originate from statutes not common-law. Many laws originate from statutes. Fourth, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, abortion was already restricted by at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures, including the very Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in Roe. Or in other words, state or territorial laws restricting abortion were already recognized when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted: the Amendment wasn’t intended to overturn laws restricting abortion […]
The Court deliberately ignored the facts and misled the public. First, the question of when human life begins is neither one of philosophy nor theology; the question is one of science. Second, the medical community had already arrived at the consensus that human life begins at conception. In October 1971, a group of medical experts filed a brief of amicus curiae (advice to a court from a person or persons not a party to the case) to the Supreme Court. The brief showed conclusively that science (embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology) establishes that human life begins at conception. And not a single person or group refuted the brief.
Alan Dershowitz deserves credit for distinguishing between his policy goals and the tactics used to pursue them. We’ll still have to work to help him see the light, but his unwillingness to lie about the law is a good sign that the truth already has a foot in the door.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·Eugenics
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Nancy Flanders
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Nancy Flanders
·Analysis
Sheena Rodriguez
·Guest Column
Calvin Freiburger
·Abortion Pill Reversal
Calvin Freiburger
·Guest Column
Calvin Freiburger
·Abortion Pill Reversal
Calvin Freiburger
·Activism
Calvin Freiburger
·