It’s ironic that Red State is simultaneously running articles that mock the Chicago chief of police’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and the governor of New York’s interpretation of what the Supreme Court permits in abortion law. It’s true that in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that people have an individual right to bear arms that cannot be superseded by state or local laws. It’s also true that the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision forty years ago that women can get a late-term abortion if the baby isn’t viable or the woman’s life or health is jeopardized.
It’s okay to disagree with Supreme Court decisions. But you can’t argue, in one case, that the argument is settled because the Court has ruled, and then argue in the other case that the argument is very much alive despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled.
You say that the Constitution doesn’t protect a women’s right to make reproductive decisions that have a bearing on her health. I say that the Constitution only gives you the right to own a smooth-bore musket. We can have a debate about those issues, but we aren’t allowed to appeal to the Court’s authority. The whole premise is that we both think the Court is fallible.
