Publisher Bruce Trogdon

Biden should cut back on his spending plans. My guess is he will change the subject to covid or abortion. So today we will do old Uncle Joe a favor and talk about the Texas anti-abortion law.

Our featured Guest columns include multiple takes on the new Texas abortion law and where it might lead.

“What a post-’Roe v. Wade’ future might look like” is regular Post regular Megan McArdle’s. She con­cludes that “just as Republicans will have to figure out how to move beyond ‘End Roe,’ Democrats will have to build a party that can operate beyond ‘Defend It.’ The party that wins that fight may be the one that most quickly persuades its activist cadres to let the party move toward the messy, murky territory where the rest of the country lives.

“Texas is not the new Taliban” offers pro-life conserva­tive Christine Flowers. “It’s no secret I have been advocating for the criminalization of abortion for decades” she admits.

“Many people disagree with me, and that’s okay. It’s a controversial topic, and there really is no common ground, despite what the peacemakers try and argue. And I fully ad­mit that the Texas law is extreme and novel, to the extent that it allows private parties to enforce it” comments Flowers.

“Critics of Texas’s convoluted abortion law have a point: The solution is to overturn Roe v. Wade” weighs in O. Carter Snead, a law professor at the University of No­tre Dame and author of “What It Means to be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics.”

“A bad abortion law won’t change hearts or ad­vance our nation” wrote The Dallas Morning News. “What’s clear to us is that the recently enacted Texas law isn’t going to improve this country’s long-simmering de­bate over abortion. It’s more likely to mire us in conflict and legal chaos. That, we suspect, might be its design” be­gan their editorial.

Their biggest reservation is that the Texas law empow­ers civil litigants to act as vigilantes. That seems “an end-around that outsources protection of the unborn, along with its attendant risks, to private citizens.”

Being pro-life myself, I come down somewhere be­tween Flowers and The Dallas Morning News.

I am more interested in the upcoming Mississip­pi legislation heading for the Supreme Court, which is more straightforward. It bans most abortions after 15 weeks.

But I agree with the Dallas Morning News that “what we don’t need is vigilante lawsuits.”

Should Roe v Wade be overturned? That is the Dai­ly Post Reader Poll question for Thursday.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.