“First, a pro-life strategy of compromise—rather than principle—has failed to convince the public or the courts.”
Wrong.
The people have no desire to see women compelled to give birth against their will through force of law, nor do they wish to see the size and authority of government increased at the expense of individual liberty.
And the courts will continue to invalidate measures seeking to violate a woman’s right to privacy, where government has no authority to do so.
“Second, Republican judicial nominations have failed to overturn unconstitutional pro-abortion precedents and have even contributed to them.”
Wrong.
Republican judicial nominations have appropriately followed the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law – consistent with being an Americans jurist, consistent with that jurist’s oath of office to obey and defend the Constitution and its case law.
Privacy rights jurisprudence is settled and accepted, placing limits on the government’s authority to interfere in matters both personal and private, including deciding whether to have a child or not.
“And third, our constitutional system has failed to constrain the judiciary.”
Nonsense.
Our Constitutional system has worked successfully and as originally intended by the Framers, consistent with a republican form of government, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; measures seeking to compel women to give birth against their will is evidence of that.
And when the states enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and have those un-Constitutional measures invalidated by the judiciary, such as the Texas law recently struck down as placing an undue burden on the privacy rights of women.
