Justice Kennedy is gone. Let’s stop writing challenges to Roe with him in mind
July 11, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – “The mental relief that one will never again have to read an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy is enough to satisfy for weeks,” Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote after the pro-gay, pro-abortion justice announced his retirement.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s departure from the Supreme Court should also be a relief to all who want to end abortion. How Kennedy would rule on abortion was always a bit of a “mystery” until decision day, and those in conservative circles would often craft legal strategy around how he might rule.
As Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has explained, some have argued against passing his Heartbeat Protection Act – federal legislation banning abortions on babies with beating hearts, including those conceived in rape – on the basis that the Supreme Court (with Kennedy being the swing vote) wouldn’t uphold it.
But as Rep. King predicted, President Trump has been able to make a second Supreme Court nomination. Kennedy’s resignation changes everything. Just listen to liberal commentators and abortion activists – one of their main, panicked talking points about Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is that there’s actually a good chance he could be the deciding vote against Roe v. Wade.
With Kennedy gone, we can change from a “we might lose so let’s water the message down so even our enemies might like it” mindset to a truly pro-life approach that doesn't compromise with the truth.
Pro-lifers should no longer approach potential Supreme Court cases with the timidity of the Kennedy years. One of the biggest “strategic” arguments against the Heartbeat Bill – Kennedy won’t go for it – is now baseless.
President Trump has kept his promises to the pro-life movement. His administration has done more to protect babies from being unjustly killed, both in the U.S. and abroad, than any other administration has.
Now, it’s time for us to present the fullness of the truth. Perhaps the justices will do what they always seem to do and choose to compromise and aim for the middle. But wouldn’t it be better for that middle point to be between pure, pro-life truth and death rather than between a compromised position and death?