21 Feb 2004 Are the Children Alive Somewhere?
The New York Times has a ridiculous editorial on Bill Pryor today.
It is not even high school level material.
For example, anyone want to bet that the Times’ complaint in the piece that Pryor “argued in favor of a Texas law that made gay sex illegal” isn’t correct? Pryor probably argued that the Texas law was constitutional, which is a great deal different than arguing in favor of the law. (It also would be consistent with what the U.S. Supreme Court itself said in 1986, aka, that such state laws are constitutional.)
I haven’t checked the record to confirm my suspicions, but few people in Alabama (Pryor’s state) do much arguing on behalf of, or against, state laws within Texas, or any other state in which they do not reside. But the constitutionality of that particular Texas law has been debated nationally, and it is likely Pryor would have been asked about the constitutional issue involved as part of the broken judicial confirmation process.
Pity the poor Times editorialists, apparently so ignorant of basic civics.
The Times also described federalism as “a states’ rights philosophy that seeks to undercut federal rights.” “Federal rights,” indeed. (Probably another of those emanations arising from penumbras that have been in the Constitution since 1789 but lurking invisibly until the valiant Times editorial writers ferreted it out.)
If the feds have “rights,” from whence do they come? Divine right?
(As an aside, I suppose the Times thinks the Bill of Rights was adopted to protect federal power. All but the First Amendment, of course, which the Times probably thinks was adopted to give journalists carte blanche while protecting Americans from the evils of organized religion.)
The Times then complains that Pryor once said Roe v. Wade, “the landmark ruling upholding abortion rights,” had “ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.” The Times does not say what is inaccurate about Pryor’s comment. Roe v. Wade dramatically altered the Constitution, at least, the way it is interpreted (as yet, the words “privacy right” do not appear in any versions of the Constitution I’ve seen, but narrow-minded as I am, I’ve been sticking to the printed version — perhaps the Times has scribbed the term onto its own copy). Presumably, the term “ripped” was meant to be figurative.
As to the rest of it, does the New York Times actually contest the assertion that millions of children have lost their lives because of Roe v. Wade?
Are the children alive somewhere?