Action Alert!

a new meaning of "pro-choice"

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles ) | Sep 23, 2005

The LA Times has a fascinating commentary on the abortion issue by David Gelernter. He believes abortion should be legal, but acknowledges that the Supreme Cour trampled on democratic process in Roe v. Wade, in "one of the grossest power grabs American democracy ever faced."

He explains: "The American people had never written it into the Constitution, but the justices (closing their eyes and wishing hard) discovered it there anyway."

Gelernter takes the position-- rarely heard from those who style themselves "pro-choice"-- that the American people should have the right to set their own laws regarding abortion.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at See full bio.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 3 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Sep. 24, 2005 12:51 AM ET USA

    Instead of having a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, I think that there should be a constitutional amendment (à la the 13th and 14th Amendments) giving the civil rights of already-born children to zygotes, embryos and fetuses. That would eliminate legal abortion and embryonic stem-cell research in the US. Unfortunately, I think that it would not receive the approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures (nor of the majority of already-born people living in the US).

  • Posted by: - Sep. 23, 2005 2:43 PM ET USA

    Roe vs. Wade needs to be overturned in America mostly because it is a usurpation of states' rights by the Supreme Court. If and when it is overturned, it will merely go back to the states, and CA and Mass. will still have abortion and Nebraska probably will not. If the pro-life people win a reversal of Roe, will they aspire to something more? Will they then ask for the Supreme Court to dictate to CA that they cannot permit abortion? Abortion is evil but totalitarianism is a greater threat.

  • Posted by: - Sep. 23, 2005 1:38 PM ET USA

    It's a refreshing piece, to be sure. He even fairly aproximates the pro-life position: if the fetus is a person, privacy is irrelevant and abortion is murder. I've seen it suggested that as Roe claims not to define when personhood begins, a Congressional resolution could define personhood to begin at conception and render Roe moot.