The pro-abortion movement is drifting towards anti-democratic approaches

USA: The occurrence of a leftist newspaper that could lead to a totalitarian regime

The American left continues to rage over the Supreme Court ruling that abortion is not a constitutional right.

Historic ruling of the US Supreme Court on abortion: this is what it says
Abortion: the new Ku Klux Klan that emerges in the US and again with the same party behind it

The New York Times considers the US Constitution dead

In the midst of that tantrum, one of the most influential outlets on the American left, The New York Times, published yesterday an outrageous article titled "The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed." In it, two law professors -Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard University and Samuel Moyn of Yale University- bluntly propose to do away with the United States Constitution.

The authors of the text themselves recognize that "ational constitutions have been associated with some set of basic freedoms and values that transient majorities might otherwise trample.", but counterbalance that idea precisely with the frustration they themselves feel at the fact that the US Constitution does not consider the act of killing an innocent and defenseless human being in the womb a right: "constitutions — especially the broken one we have now — inevitably orient us to the past and misdirect the present into a dispute over what people agreed on once upon a time".

The echoes of communism and nazism in an infamous text

In that infamous text, its authors affirm that "our current Constitution is inadequate, which is why it serves reactionaries so well", and they describe it as "a text that is famously undemocratic" and with which "progressives are forced to navigate hard-wired features", and they expressly quote what they affirm as "abortion rights". And by means of that twisted argumentation, they go on to make some tricky and dangerous affirmations:

"By leaving democracy hostage to constraints that are harder to change than the rest of the legal order, constitutionalism of any sort demands extraordinary consensus for meaningful progress. It conditions democracy in which majority rule always must matter most on surviving vetoes from powerful minorities that invoke the constitutional past to obstruct a new future."

It is amazing that these barbarities have been written by two law professors. The raison d'être of constitutions is to place limits on political power to safeguard fundamental rights. Their existence is due to the experience accumulated throughout history by the abuses committed by a political power exercised without no limitation. The world has seen such clear examples of this political absolutism as Nazism and communism.

The effects that the disparate proposal of the leftist newspaper could have

The idea that a constitution is a hindrance to the majority is not new, but it is just as dangerous as ever. If the fundamental rights can be redefined every 4 years by passing majorities, then it is not possible to speak of fundamental rights, but of mere capricious concessions by the majority to the minorities that can be suppressed when the majority gives wins it. The infamous occurrence published by The New York Times could give rise to a majority establishing racist laws such as those approved in Germany after the electoral victory of the National-Socialist Party in 1933, laws that aberrantly discriminated against the Jews. Without constitutional protection of fundamental rights, any violation is possible.

The anti-democratic drift of the pro-abortion movement

It is no surprise that this philosophy of law is defended by two pro-abortion professors. The left has been trampling on the first of human rights for decades with its pro-abortion policies. It has often done so by stretching or manipulating the meaning of constitutional texts, to subject them to the whims of the majority . Finally, when the US Supreme Court sets limits to this abuse, what the left wants is to destroy the limits to any abuse of power: pure and simple totalitarianism, no matter how much it is disguised as "democratic" for the fact that the abuse is supported by the majority. Or did the democratic in 1930s Germany support equal rights for the Jews than their suppression, backed by a parliamentary majority? Obviously not. Democracy does not mean that the majority is always right, but rather that it can elect a political power limited by fundamental rights. An unlimited political power is totalitarianism, no matter how much it has been elected by a majority at the polls.


Image: Me & Folly.

Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email:

Comment on this post:

You must login to comment. Click here to login. If you have not registered yet, click here to sign up.