I was, frankly, shocked at the line of questioning in Dobbs from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. I am aware that she previously declined to hear a medical freedom case brought before the Court and has ruled against such cases in her previous appointments. These actions suggest to me a faulty understanding of the powers reserved to the Federal government under the Constitution. There is a wrong way to decide to overturn Roe, a way that inserts dangerous language into our jurisprudence, and that is to concede that natural processes such as pregnancy or natural states such as one's health can be "burdened" by the government -- that protecting the unborn from assault is an infringement on the bodily integrity of the woman.
As Hadley Arkes argued in First Things (I link in my article), our conservative judges need to be more confident in their moral reasoning.
I lay out my thoughts here:
Can the Constitution Mandate Pregnancy and Vaccines?
This is such an important point you are making here "she seems to accept the opponent’s structuring of the issue, something that happens to conservatives all the time."
ReplyDeleteI've been really struggling with articulating that point and I appreciate you putting your finger right on it. Very often when engaging with opponents we haven't quite articulated our premises to ourselves and can get swept off track in our arguments. This is pernicious in the critical race theory arguments. We need to keep our first principals straight or else we will misdirect where we intend to go!
Great article!
Thank you, Logan! First principles!
Delete