The most recent issue of National Review magazine is a special issue devoted to making the case against Roe v. Wade. National Review has been beating this drum for decades, but the topic is in the spotlight with particular salience this month as we await the December 1 oral arguments in the upcoming Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization at the Supreme Court.
For the first time in three decades, the Court will revisit the train wreck of Roe, and NR has put together an outstanding issue, examining the topic from every angle and insisting that the justices do their duty and end Roe.
My own contribution to the special issue rebuts the inevitable argument we ought to expect from abortion-advocacy groups if Roe is indeed overturned: that, in reversing Roe, the Court has contradicted the will of the American people. This is simply not the case, and in fact the opposite is true. Roe and its judicial legacy have created a legal landscape in which the American people have next to no control over our nation’s abortion policy, and most citizens disagree with the status quo.
The entire issue is full of gems, absolute must-reads. Robert P. George and Matthew J. Franck have a stellar essay explaining exactly why Roe was a constitutional travesty. Maureen Condic tackles the science of fetal pain. Clarke D. Forsythe makes that case that, on stare decisis grounds, Roe must be overturned. Hugh Hewitt argues that, based on his own reasoning, Chief Justice John Roberts has no space to do anything but reverse Roe. Erika Bachiochi rebuts the “reliance interest” argument, the idea that Roe should stay in place because women somehow rely on legal abortion to flourish.
That’s just scratching the surface of what we have to offer in the magazine this time around. If you want the very best pro-life arguments, facts, and analysis ahead of oral arguments, we hope you’ll check it out.
Content created by Alexandra DeSanctis
What are your thoughts on the story? Let us know in the comments below!