Richard Cohen has changed his mind about Roe v Wade.
"Conservatives -- and some liberals -- have long argued that the right to an abortion ought to be regulated by states. They have a point. My guess is that the more populous states would legalize it, the smaller ones would not, and most women would be protected. The prospect of some women traveling long distances to secure an abortion does not cheer me -- I'm pro-choice, I repeat -- but it would relieve us all from having to defend a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.
For liberals, the trick is to untether abortion rights from Roe . The former can stand even if the latter falls. The difficulty of doing this is obvious. Roe has become so encrusted with precedent that not even the White House will say how Harriet Miers would vote on it, even though she is rigorously antiabortion and politically conservative. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument -- but a bit of our soul as well."
According to Cohen, the reasoning and arguments of Princeton's Robert George, as well as medical progress, helped him change his mind. Professor George also helped Stanley Fish change his tune about abortion too. The October 8, 2003 Princeton Alumni Weekly's profile of Professor George, The Heretic in the Temple beautifully illuminates the difference one strong conservative can make in an enviroment as polluted with liberal thought as the Boston Harbor is with toxins. Read also what the alumni have to say about Princeton's only heretic.
Considering Professor George's solid reputation and track record of persuading influencial liberals to change their minds, one can't help but wonder why wasn't he nominated for the Supreme Court instead of Harriet Miers? Harriet Miers v Robert George. On a level playing field, who is the more qualified candidate?
I hate affirmative action.
Thanks to AmSpec.