The abortion lobby has been in crisis mode ever since the early morning hours of November 9th, 2016 when they curled up with their cosmos and watched someone who had publicly promised to appoint a pro-life Supreme Court Justice and defund Planned Parenthood give his acceptance speech for the Presidency of the United States.
The people were given a choice to vote for someone who held radical views on abortion that lined up with only a small percentage of Americans. But they didn’t choose that woman. They chose President Trump and now, months later, their allies the U.S. Senate are trying everything they can to hold up the rightful confirmation of the new president’s Supreme Court pick.
NARAL, a large abortion advocacy group, is running ads. Planned Parenthood is sending out frantic fundraising emails and Cecile Richards is tweeting all kinds of crazy accusations against Judge Neil Gorsuch. Only nominees who fervently support Roe v. Wade are allowed on bench, according to the abortion industry.
But they didn’t win in November. They don’t get that choice anymore.
While the rhetoric is heated on whether or not a nominee supports Roe, the core issue is how the nominee views the Constitution and what their past opinions have said regarding abortion and the protection of life, if any.
Roe v. Wade, no matter what kind of made-up legal jargon Sen. Dianne Feinstein gives it, is a horrible judicial decision. Legal scholars, many of whom are pro-choice, agree that the decision is faulty.
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the Supreme Court’s most ardent liberals, said Roe was “heavy-handed judicial intervention.”
The attorney for Al Gore in 2000, Lawrence Tribe, said that "One of the most curious things aboutRoe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
Judge Gorsuch agreed during his confirmation hearing that Roe is precedent and is essentially the law of the land. It is now but that doesn’t mean it’s going to stay that way.
The Supreme Court has overruled past decisions that were, at the time, considered precedent.
Nowhere in the Constitution as it is written is there a right to abortion. A Constitutionalist would understand that and Judge Neil Gorsuch is a Constitutionalist who, from past opinions, holds a conservative philosophy and viewpoint, which President Trump believes would qualify him as a similar justice to the late Antonin Scalia.
If Hillary Clinton had won in November, either there would be no shortage of opinions to back up the pro-abortion philosophy of the nominee or the abortion lobby would be clamoring together in support of the judge, which is all any pro-lifer would need to know in order to oppose the nominee.
Americans had the chance to change the makeup of the Supreme Court in November and they voted in turn. The U.S. Senate needs to consider that result, move forward with the president’s pick, and confirm Judge Gorsuch without delay.