"Stare decisis" (literally, "to stand in the things that have been decided") is the key argument the defenders of Roe v. Wade seem to be making here. Those people argue that nothing substantial has changed since Roe to justify modifying or even overturning it. That position is simply untenable, based on the advances in medical sience in the 48 years since Roe.

Also, that doctrine is untenable in the event that the Court determines that a precedent was, to use the argument of Justice Kavanaugh, "wrongly decided". The Court accepted the validity of that argument in 1954 when it issued the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which overturned the truly dreadful 1898 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. Frankly, there's no reason why this Court should at the very least recognize that medican science has largely made the trimester scheme of Roe, which has been effectively abandoned by subsequent decisions, at best in dire need of upgrading.

Dinesh D'Souza disassembles the left's arguments in defense of their most sacred secular sacrament here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/an-unprecedented-disaster_4135758.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=opinionia&utm_campaign=opinionia-2021-12-07

Expand full comment

Erick, you wrote:

"Over the next year, we will get a ton of unbalanced and unreasonable media coverage that the threat to Roe will help the Democrats."

You forgot to add, "unhinged".

Expand full comment

Thanks for letting me know it was Ed who authored the heartbeat bill! He is my State Rep and I was blessed to meet him at Dunkin Donuts one morning with his daughter. We had a great conversation over coffee and he is a truly good Christian man! Thanks for all your insight cuz I know when I hear from you I'm getting truth and sanity on the politics of our country. Merry Christmas to you and your family Erick!

Expand full comment

Sometimes you have to make the righteous vote and the hell with the politics.

Expand full comment

Ranjust now


Abortion has changed from protecting woman, while at least incorporating protections to the baby at a certain week or month to Abortion on demand. That alone weakens your argument.

Then add in Climate Change, Social Disruption, Defunding the Police, Paying people to stay home, Vaccination or nothing (Covid), being in bed with teachers unions who are pushing back on home schooling and control of curriculum, after parents staying at home (because of Covid) witnessed what was really going on at a local level. Roe V Wade will be the 'outrage of the week or month', but you cannot hold message on all of these and be effective. When you stand for everything - you, to a degree, stand for nothing.

Add to it, a President asleep at the wheel and a Vice President reminds you very much of Hillary Clinton; not fast on her feet when challenged, and shifting with whatever the political winds of the day are. And that's the problem, the wind is shifting so often in Washington with the left, you cannot go one direction with a message.

Roe V Wade is just another issue for the left. Not THE issue (that is arguably Climate Change). You can only make so much noise about Abortion and only be so effective.

Expand full comment
Dec 7, 2021Liked by Erick-Woods Erickson

Here's what I've discovered with Erick's articles. He's consistent in his thinking and stands on issues. While in this article he clearly points out the extreme progressives in the Democrat party--and on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC--make Roe the veritable altar of their religion, they exist within their own, detached bubble. Context is everything. The context Erick comes from is first theological, but second, he is a truly pure Conservative which means he is willing to even call out Republicans when they are not.

Oh yeah, he also has a brain and uses it.....(smile)!

Expand full comment

I think you are saying, whether Roe v Wade survives just doesn't matter? You'd never know that by what is on the TV.

Expand full comment