Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Roe v. Wade v. Nebraska

The recent enactment of a law restricting abortion in the state of Nebraska has the pro-abortion zealots in a snit. They supposedly fear for their sacred Roe v. Wade ruling. Don't they realize that the ruling is ancient history? It was handed down in 1973 by seven men. How could old men have anything to say about abortion and women's rights? These rulings are living, breathing things; they change and evolve over time to suit the current societal climate. And everyone knows that they are full of penumbras and emanations that can be twisted into all sorts of interpretations beyond the original text of the ruling. We can't be bound by the strict original text and interpretation; how are we to know what was in the heads of the men who wrote it such a long, long time ago? Not to mention that words meant different things in that era than they do today. No, to hold us to the strict interpretation of that court ruling would mean that we must also apply that same standard to interpreting the original text and meaning of the Constitution. Surely we can't have that. What folly.

No comments: