When the United States Supreme Court overturns precedent, it's usually for a good reason. Brown v. Board of Education was good reason. Loving v. Virginia was good reason.
There are legal, constitutional reasons to overturn Roe v. Wade, and before our friends on the left roll their eyes and announce that only a hack could say so, we give you what appears to be a majority of justices on the United States Supreme Court.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said you can choose to believe what you want to believe, but you can't choose your own set of facts. And the fact is that there is a substantial case to be made against Roe, and has been, and not just by right-wing kooks.
So, as conservative thinkers are just now appearing to win on this issue in the courts, conservative non-thinkers are tangling things up again.
Mitch McConnell, the United States Senate minority leader, told the press there might be a "possible" push for a national abortion ban.
Do what?
The argument, or one of the arguments, against Roe is that the decision was applied from on high. And the decision on abortion law should be made at the state level. And instead of being one of the few democratic nations where the abortion question was forced upon the people by the courts, the people ought to be able to work it out among themselves, through the political process, as we do so much else.
Now that we're almost there, some of our friends--this time on the right--seem to want to march in the other direction. And impose from on high themselves.
When it comes to divisive issues, it's sometimes a good idea to turn to Asa Hutchinson, governor of Arkansas, to see how he thinks about things. He's as reasonable as they come. Even if you would have never believed it to hear from some of his critics early in his career. (It's amazing how reasonable steady politicians become when politics get so unreasonable so fast.)
Asa Hutchinson has been appearing on the Sunday shows again. Which might point at a run for president. But what's assuring is that he doesn't seem to take the path of so many others--the path of saying anything just to get national media attention. This past week, he said he does not support a national abortion ban.
"That's inconsistent for what we have been fighting for, for four decades, which is that we wanted Roe v. Wade reversed and the authority returned to the states," he told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "As a matter of principle, that's where it should be."
A matter of principle? In national politics?
Doubtless this new way of doing business--should the leaked majority opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court be issued this summer--will be confusing at first. States will probably come up with an unknown number of different laws.
And there's controversy afoot in Arkansas because the Ledge has already voted to ban abortion here and made no exceptions for rape and incest. Which seems to many Arkansans as a step too far. Why would the Ledge handcuff a victim of a horrible crime this way? Or, in the alternative, why should the child pay for the crimes of its father?
This will have to be debated. And we don't see this issue being "solved" any time soon.
But it should be fought on the state level.
cc: All those U.S. representatives fighting for national media attention. Especially the conservatives. Let's keep in mind the arguments we used last year. Or last month.