The framers clearly intended that bitterly controversial social issues should be worked out in the ordinary processes of state and local politics. The HLA would plainly flout that aspect of the constitutional plan. Neither a balanced budget amendment nor a flag-burning amendment is remotely analogous.
As originally written the Constitution even left the states free to infringe basic human rights by providing for one human being to own another. It took a war which left hundreds of thousands dead to resolve that matter on a national basis. The framers had it in mind that most issues would be defused with less fuss through a decentralized process of discussion and compromise.
Abortion is certainly a violation of a basic inalienable right. It doesn’t follow, however, that a federal prohibition mandating that abortion be criminal in all fifty states would be consistent with the Constitution’s federal plan nor that it would be a good idea.
Fred is absolutely correct to turn away from the HLA. It can’t pass, and even if it could it shouldn’t. The HLA would only reinforce the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.
Roe short-circuited a serious debate we need to have about abortion. If we focus that debate on the HLA and whether abortion should be criminal nationwide the forces of life will lose it. Even if they won they would only empower a pro-choice resistance movement that would mirror the pro-life movement Roe inspired.
The debate we need has to be focused on enacting reasonable, life-saving regulation, state by state. That process can persuade people and help move the culture closer to full appreciation of life’s incalculable value.
Fred is pointing the way here and NRTL plainly understands that. Nobody else in the field of candidates has been able clearly to say that Roe was wrongly decided and must be overturned. Nobody else has record that proves he understands this. That’s where the rubber hits the road in the fight for life.
The HLA is an artifact of a time when the pro-life movement hadn’t yet figured out either the magnitude of the task it faced or the right tools for attacking it. It’s long past time to let it go. Certainly the pro-life movement can’t afford to fall into an idiotic internecine spat over a silly relic like the HLA.
Their position on slavery would suggest you are correct, but that didn’t work out so well, and I think it’s fair to say the slavery issue was their biggest error.
On the other hand, maybe that was the only way to get the states together, and we shouldn’t fault them for accepting something that would be loathsome to rational people, if that compromise led to something better.
Excellent analysis. May I have your permission to use it elsewhere?
Which other unalienable rights are you going to turn over to state decision-making?
“Fred is absolutely correct to turn away from the HLA. It can’t pass, and even if it could it shouldn’t. The HLA would only reinforce the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.”
I disagree strongly.
A Human Life Amendment couldn’t pass with a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and in three-quarters of the state legislatures if it were going to reinforce “the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.”
Rather, passage of a Human Life Amendment will represent a final confirmation in American society that a consensus has been achieved in American society that unborn human beings are persons with inalienable rights worthy of protection in law.
Consenus must precede constitutional amendment. It’s tough to pass one without that consensus.
But clearly, that consensus doesn't currently exist, and it doesn't appear to be taking shape anytime soon. Thus, pro-lifers should never lose sight of the eventual goal - protection of ALL human persons in law - but should focus on what can be achieved now. And electing a pro-life president who will appoint justices who understand that there is no constitutional "right" to procure the killing of one's baby is something that we can currently achieve.
sitetest