Independent Institute Scholars Spar Over Abortion Ruling
Independent Institute scholars believe in individual rights, but that doesn’t mean they embrace everything that claims to be an individual right, or that the Constitution’s 9th Amendment confers judicial protection for every rights claim. In fact, they disagree with one another on this. Even when they disagree, though, the discussion is pretty illuminating... as occurred on our most recent episode of Independent Outlook, discussing the Dobbs case on abortion law. Take a look.
The full Independent Outlook episode, which also features Stephen Halbrook explaining the recent 2nd Amendment case, can be found here:
Additionally, the audio versions of Independent Outlook can be found on podcast platforms, including Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
In the full-length episode, participants comment on the unprecedented political and ideological pressure—including scattered violence and the attempted assassination of a sitting Justice—brought to bear on the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in connection with Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In the face of this pressure, the Court ruled that Mississippi cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction over abortion law in the name of an alleged right to abortion that the earlier Roe v. Wade decision had located in extensions of implicit shadows of certain words in the 14th Amendment. Was the Court wise—or foolish—to turn a blind eye to whether public opinion would approve of this momentous ruling?
Nearly fifty years after the ruling in Roe v. Wade, the topic of abortion remains contentious. Independent Institute’s fellows and scholars continue to think through the issue carefully. For more on the subject, consider William Watkins’ analysis and Randall Holcombe’s examination on the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and the written debate on Roe v. Wade between Graham Walker, who takes the con argument on Roe, and James A. Montanye, taking the pro argument.