Neil Gorsuch: Roe v. Wade is “Precedent”

Neil Gorsuch: Roe v. Wade is “Precedent” March 22, 2017

bouquet-1585258_1280

I cannot remember how many times I was told, a thousand years ago in 2016, that the single pro-life issue of our time was electing a Republican to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices.

I was told over and over and over again that we absolutely had to vote for TV’s Donald Trump even though he was incompetent, volatile and a disgusting cad, because he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. That was his selling point. The old-school pro-life scene kept repeating this over and over and over again. Trump was going to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pro-life Supreme Court justices were the only issue on which we should focus, and Trump was going to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. No other issue was more important than pro-life Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Every single time I tried to point out that avoiding a nuclear war and not starving poor people to death were also compelling pro-life issues, some chowderhead would say “Can you say Supreme Court justices?” as if I hadn’t thought of that.

I pointed out that Trump couldn’t be trusted to remember what he was doing one day to the next, let alone appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. I pointed out that even if he did, that’s not how the Supreme Court works– they don’t go rifling through the law, find one they don’t like and overturn it on a lark. It wasn’t likely that any justice was going to be able to overturn Roe v. Wade even if they’d like to. And anyway, doing so wouldn’t put an end to abortion.  I got accused of secretly being a “pro-abort” even though I’ve said in more ways than I can count that I am deeply opposed to abortion. Apparently, the only pro-life issue was overturning Roe v. Wade, and it didn’t matter to the old-school one-issue pro-life movement how many other lives were destroyed in the process of electing their suspiciously orange silver bullet. They were determined to get their pro-life Supreme Court justices, and they were willing to sell their souls to get them.

False teaching on whether it was a sin to vote for anyone but Trump was promulgated. Reputations were ruined. Infant corpses and Catholic altars were desecrated. People buried their heads in the Republican party like ostriches in the sand. It was not a pretty scene. In the end, the allegedly pro-life Donald Trump was elected president. Frank Pavone posted one of his creepy low-quality cell phone videos declaring it a pro-life victory.

Fast forward to yesterday.

Yesterday, Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, had his confirmation hearing before Congress.

When asked about Roe v. Wade, he said:

Roe v. Wade is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court… A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Later, in response to another question, he said of Roe v. Wade:

Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law.  What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.

If only someone had told us how it was going to be in advance.

I hope you’re proud of yourselves, that’s all I can say.

(image via Pixabay)

"Then, in her moment of need, she would be trying to get the combination right ..."

What if we Applied Pro-Life Rhetoric ..."
"Instead of using the term, “abortion rights,” perhaps the term, “reproductive justice,” should be used. ..."

What White Feminists Get Wrong about ..."
"White privilege is invisible to many white women. That's why this post is so important. ..."

What White Feminists Get Wrong about ..."
"I don't believe that that verse applies to parking spaces either. God isn't a vending ..."

What is Spiritual Abuse?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment