Friday, April 22, 2005
Roe redux
On yesterday's NYT op-ed page, highly overrated pundit David Brooks parroted the argument that Roe v. Wade, by taking abortion out of the political arena by constitutionalizing the issue, did liberals no favors: It mobilized right-wing opposition and de-mobilized liberals, shifting the complexion of politics on a range of issues beyond reproductive choice.
While not original,* the revisionism or contrarianism in Brooks's op ed is insightful as history. But it's worse than useless to make current policy based on hypothetical "could have been" history. Althouse makes the point superbly.
_____
*The argument has been made many times in recent years. See, e.g., Jack Balkin's op ed on the same pages, January 25, 2003. I'm guessing you can also find it on Balkin's blog.
***
While not original,* the revisionism or contrarianism in Brooks's op ed is insightful as history. But it's worse than useless to make current policy based on hypothetical "could have been" history. Althouse makes the point superbly.
_____
*The argument has been made many times in recent years. See, e.g., Jack Balkin's op ed on the same pages, January 25, 2003. I'm guessing you can also find it on Balkin's blog.
***
Comments:
<< Home
Whether or not it did liberals any favors, it certainly did women a "favor". Could you imagine a column suggesting that the legal advances toward racial equality are a disservice to persons of color?
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 1:52 AM, April 27, 2005
: 1:52 AM, April 27, 2005 Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
