by Charles Gordon
January 23, 2008
No matter which Republican ends up facing Hillary or Obama this fall, count on that person to be the abortion establishment’s worst nightmare.
But wait a second, you say. Of the four leading GOP candidates, only one of them, Mike Huckabee, is both a longtime and a passionate pro-lifer. Mitt Romney appears ardent on the issue, but he’s a relatively recent convert. John McCain has never supported the pro-abortion position, but has historically lacked passion on the matter. And Rudy Giuliani remains unapologetically pro-choice.
So what is the extremist left — the supporters of abortion any time, any place, for any reason — so worried about?
Judges……especially Supreme Court justices.
Simply stated, all four of these presidential aspirants have made it crystal clear that they will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, meaning judges who will interpret the Constitution as written. And as both sides of the abortion issue readily admit, strict constructionism is utterly incompatible with the Roe v. Wade decision.
But can we trust them to follow through on their declarations? We probably can, and the reason is this: Grassroots GOP voters, including those with pro-choice leanings, are positively livid over an anti-constructionist, activist bench that has run roughshod not only over state and local control over abortion, but over almost every nook and cranny of American life for the past generation or more. Consequently, traditional conservatives and libertarians alike remain more determined than ever to hold the candidates to their word on this issue.
So as we mark the 35th anniversary of Roe, we should expect an hysterical campaign by the road warriors of the radical left this fall against the GOP nominee. And we should expect the nominee, if he is wise, to point out the obvious — that the “choice” argument cuts both ways, that the voters of each state, not nine unelected judges, should ultimately have the “right to choose” — on abortion, and on every other matter in this world where the Constitution is silent.