Every day, it seems, the United States is becoming a more hostile environment for people with pro-life and conservative positions. Abortion activists constantly challenge pro-life laws, stall abortion industry investigations, force religious objectors to pay for abortions and attack life-affirming resource organizations.
A recent article by Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet on the blog Balkinization calls for liberals to pursue even more aggressive measures against conservatives and pro-lifers, according to a new column by The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson.
Anderson wrote at The Daily Signal:
Now that President Barack Obama has reshaped the federal judiciary, liberal causes can win easily in court. And now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died, “judges no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if they take aggressively liberal positions.”
Tushnet blames what he calls the “culture wars” on conservatives, and he says liberals should now make conservatives pay. “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won,” he writes in italics. Tushnet claims that conservatives “had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy.”
Since when have liberals been defensive? The scorched earth policy has been theirs. They’ve been the aggressors—they’ve been offensive. Conservatives have been defensive.
It seems hard to envision how conservatives could have declared a unilateral cease fire when they weren’t the ones firing in the first place. Liberals aggressively sought in the courts an unlimited abortion license, a redefinition of marriage, and now for transgender bathroom policies throughout the nation. Liberals haven’t been bashful to use the courts to reshape social policy when they couldn’t win at the polls.
… Tushnet makes it clear that he and his colleagues among the liberal elite want the government to treat conservative Christians worse than racists—like Nazis.
Tushnet said liberals should take a strong “hard line (‘You lost, live with it’)” approach to conservatives, including all pro-lifers (some liberals also oppose abortion), not allowing any “accommodations” or compromises. He said one of the first U.S. Supreme Court decisions that should be thrown out is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which set a new standard under Roe v. Wade and allowed states to enact modest protections for unborn babies, especially viable late-term babies.
The United States already has abortion laws that are more extreme than all but a few other nations, China and North Korea, for example. It is concerning to think what would happen if Tushnet had his way.
Anderson ended his column by encouraging pro-lifers to keep working to ensure Tushnet’s oppressive ideas don’t succeed.
“It’s what Americans did after Roe v. Wade. Congress and the states passed a variety of laws that protect pro-life conscience,” Anderson wrote. “In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court invented a right to an abortion. But after Roe, legislatures made clear that government cannot require a pro-life doctor or nurse to perform an abortion—that they, too, had rights.”
Despite abortion activists’ aggressive, well-funded efforts, they have not been able to block Americans from the truth. Consistently, polls show that most Americans oppose most abortions; and young pro-lifers are stepping up in increasing numbers to end the injustice of abortion and restore rights for babies in the womb.