A Crucial Victory, By A Hair

Today's Supreme Court decision backing limits on partial birth abortion represents the first fruits of the Bush judicial realignment, and marks a watershed moment in the battle for recognition of the rights of the unborn. With a vote of 5 to 4, the decision also illustrates the tenuous and precarious character of the hard-won battles over conservative judicial nominees. Make no mistake, the liberal Left recognizes the stakes, and today's result reinforces their strategy of delay, delay, and delay, in hopes that President Bush will tire of the fight, and that he will be replaced by a Democrat. No issue personifies the distinction between the two national parties more than that of abortion, and the evidence of that can be seen in the responses of the candidates of the two parties for the Presidential nomination. To a man, the Republican candidates were supportive of the decision, even Giuliani, who is no friend of the pro-life movement. Conversely, every Democratic contender was critical of the decision. The amalgamation of interest groups that is the national Democratic party has no unifying philosophy, apart from Bush hatred, unless it is the absolute right of a woman to abort her baby, down to the very last birth contraction, or even beyond. That today's victory has been so long in coming speaks to the success of the abortion industry's tactics, yet even so our focus today should be one of exultation in the sweet aroma of long-awaited judicial victory.

The ruling marks the first restriction on abortion that has passed constitutional muster since Roe (apart from those with exceptions for "health of the mother," which are deceptive smokescreens emasculating the intent of the restrictions). Today's decision has no such exception, and is therefore landmark in its scope. It seems likely to me that future Roberts Court decisions on abortion will focus on building a constitutional bulwark of judgments that gives legitimacy to abortion restrictions, and I think it is unlikely that the votes will exist on the Supreme Court in the foreseeable future to flatly overturn the travesty that is Roe v. Wade. Given the politics and the personalities of the players involved, I suspect Chief Justice Roberts has wisely opted to aim for base hits, to use a baseball metaphor, rather than shooting for the fence with a home run overturning Roe. I believe Roberts has chosen the wiser course, and one that will most likely yield long term success for the pro-life movement.

While we must always remember that our ultimate purpose is to honor and protect the lives of unborn babies, today's ruling also has a secondary and very interesting side benefit. Occurring as it has in the hotbed of Presidential primary politicking, the decision has focused attention on the nuances of the various Republican candidates' abortion rights stances. The decision does not have the same tactical implications for Democratic candidates since their positions are all in lockstep with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. For the Republicans, however, obfuscation and deflection will be more difficult as a result of the new legal landscape, and greater clarity in their positions will be required. This is certainly to our benefit as voters.

I await with interest how all today's events shake out with Republican primary voters. I've previously posted my opinion that none of the top tier GOP candidates have completely sound pro-life credentials, and I hope one result of the renewed focus on abortion will be to cement the pro-life platform of whoever is the Republican nominee. While I can respect Giuliani for at least his consistency regarding his position on abortion rights, I'm convinced both McCain and Romney will perform whatever contortions are necessary to win the Presidency, and that the pro-life worldview is not foundational for them. Meanwhile, I'm amazed at the descriptions I've read of Fred Thompson's pro-life record. I do understand the attractiveness of, and could even support, a Fred Thompson candidacy, but he is most assuredly not a bedrock pro-life partisan.

Fred is, however, a states' rights federalist, and it is on that basis that I could support him. I believe he would indeed appoint strict judicial constructionists to the federal bench, and the end result for pro-lifers would be the same, since Roe is itself such a perversion of constitutional law. I believe Fred would justify his position, not on principles of Divinely-authored respect for life, but instead on the improper usurpation by the courts of an issue more properly decided in the political arena. Either argument is intellectually sound and achieves the same goal.

Notwithstanding all of the above, President Bush has been correct in saying that the larger task for pro-lifers is to engage with mainstream America to promote a "culture of life." Without success in that arena we will never achieve the political victory that we are seeking. Let us busy ourselves about that task as we savor today's nugget of triumph.