Religion & Law

Today, of course, in the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  Here are some remarks, regarding that decision, its significance, and the future, given by Robert George, at the Cardinal O'Connor Conference on Life.  As George explains (I say "explains," rather than "argues", because it seems to me that he is right when he says that), Roe was wrong on the law, wrong in terms of the Justices' assumption that the policy they were constitutionalizing was a humane and progressive one, and wrong in terms of what it ended up doing to our national politics, and to constitutional law.  He also notes (as many did, during the election):

Of course, from the pro-life vantage point, success on the judicial front is only the prelude to the larger political struggle over abortion. If Roe is reversed, the result will be to return the matter to the domain of ordinary democratic deliberation for resolution by the state legislatures or the Congress. The burden will then be on the pro-life movement to win the struggle for the soul of the nation. We must, with God?s help, persuade our fellow citizens to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence by bringing the unborn fully within the protection of our laws.



On this score, we have a marvelous model in the great anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce. When he began his work against the monstrous evil of chattel slavery, the odds appeared to be long against abolition. He was attacked by partisans of the slave power as a zealot, a religious fanatic, and, most perversely, an enemy of freedom. He was, they said, imposing his religious values on others. If he didn?t like slavery, well, no one was forcing him to own slaves. He should mind his own business and stay out of other people?s affairs. Less vitriolic critics said that he was unrealistic. He was a dreamer. He was making impossible demands. Does any of this sound familiar?

That is, George draws what is, in my view, the better lesson from the fact (sometimes pointed to as a reason for pro-life voters not to focus on judicial nominations) that overturning Roe (if it ever happened) would not end abortion, namely, that pro-lifers would -- once freed from the shackles that Roe imposes on normal democratic politics -- still have to work hard to change (through persuasion, charity, example, diligence) hearts and minds:  "[F]or us, there is only the trying. The rest is God?s business, not ours. Yet we are given to know that in trying, we fulfill God?s commands, and build up His kingdom."

Obviously, the legal landscape on which this "trying" will take place has changed in recent months, and is changing at this very moment (whether or not the Freedom of Choice Act itself is enacted into law).  I believe strongly that the pro-life position requires opposition to the constitutionalization of an abortion license.  For now, though, this mistaken constitutionalization is safe, and likely to be celebrated and entrenched.  But the "trying", in one way or another -- as the thousands marching in Washington today remind us -- will continue.