The state of Iowa just made headlines with the passage and signing of the “Heartbeat Bill,” a piece of legislation that will ban the majority of abortions within the state. “I understand that not everyone will agree with this decision,” stated Governor Kim Reynolds. “But if death is determined when a heart stops beating, then doesn’t a beating heart indicate life? For me, it is immoral to stop an innocent beating heart.” The new law will prohibit all abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, giving it the distinction of being the most restrictive abortion ban in the U.S.
Recent speculation has mounted regarding the potential retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Widely seen as the swing vote on key issues, his exit from the court would have enormous ramifications. While viewed as moderate overall, he has repeatedly sided with the justices who far more liberally interpret the Constitution when cases involving social issues are brought before the court. As the second oldest justice, and the longest serving, his retirement is one of the more likely to happen in the near future. While still in the rumor stage, the potential vacancy has been discussed at the very
Live by the court, die by the court. For decades now, the Left has been using the courts to force their unpopular, unconstitutional ideas on the American people, who would not accept them through the democratic process. Some of the most egregious examples include Roe v. Wade (abortion), Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), and NFIB v. Sebelius (Obamacare). It’s awfully convenient — the Left doesn’t have to worry about any of that democracy stuff. (The 31 states that voted against redefining marriage prior to Obergefell, for example, just weren’t cutting it.) But when so many of your core issues rest
Prof. Gerry Bradley of Notre Dame Law School has a column today at National Review repudiating recent arguments that Neil Gorsuch should answer boldly on overturning Roe v. Wade during his Senate confirmation hearings. Prof. Bradley argues: For him to become the first nominee in living memory to reveal his mind about Roe would mark him — now, with some reason — as strikingly imprudent, injudicious, beyond not just the “mainstream” but the norm altogether. It would almost certainly end his confirmation chances. While I love contrarian and aggressive ideas for their potential to bring about impressive change, I have to admit