When Donald Trump won the presidency, several pro-life advocates, including myself, saw the victory as a monumental win for the pro-life movement. With Trump’s victory, we saw it as a step toward Planned Parenthood being defunded, abolishing abortion and yes, a pro-life Supreme Court.
It was a wonderful night for the pre-born community. Some people were on the fence in the pro-life movement about voting for Trump. I know that I don’t have to cite any reasons why. What convinced them to endorse Donald Trump, however, was that he promised to nominate pro-life justices. For those of you who may not be informed, the most efficient way of giving equal rights to pre-born humans will be through the Supreme Court, just like all other minority groups that were oppressed.
Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a 49-year federal court judge and graduate from Harvard Law School. What I can tell you from what I watched during the hearings is that he is a very sharp and stellar individual. He’s got an excellent resume and handles most of the questions very well. However, abortion came up. At this point, I, the pro-life community, the pro-life movement, the pro-choice supporters and Planned Parenthood sat at the edge of our seats waiting for him to say, “I am going to overturn Roe v. Wade,” or “A woman deserves the right to choose.” He gave all of us, however, an answer that we didn’t like. He didn’t really give one at all. Although he didn’t give a direct answer (nor much less an indirect one), there was one statement that worried me.
Gorsuch stated, “Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed … and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered.”
Roe v. Wade is a precedent, it was a decision made by the Supreme Court, and now it is the law of the land. What is the significance of that? To me, absolutely nothing. That type of answer is extremely fallacious. He is almost implying that the Supreme Court is the standard for morality. The Supreme Court is full of flawed men and women, just like you and I. Let’s go back to Dred Scott v. Stanford, which denied equal rights to African-Americans.
If you asked me what I thought of that court case, and I said it was precedented, how much sense would that make? I realize that Roe v. Wade is precedent, but what value is something that is precedented? Absolutely nothing. Yes, Dred Scott v. Stanford was precedented, but it was also wrong. This is because all humans are created equal with certain unalienable rights such as life and liberty. Therefore, just because a court case is precedented doesn’t make it right or wrong; it just means that it’s been decided, history shows that court cases that have been decided can certainly turn out to be a grave human rights violation.
I know that’s such a little bit to pick on. This man, however, could cause the life or death of millions of pre-born human beings per year. I’ll also clarify that I would take him over Hillary Clinton’s nominees any day of the week. We as a nation are blessed to have a sharp and studious man like Neil Gorsuch to take this position. Though he said a couple of statements that has the pro-life movement biting our fingernails in anxiety, I have faith in him that he will acknowledge our nation’s creed so that one day, we all may be treated equally, with especially the right to life.
Jacob is a sophomore studying pre-law at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. How do you feel about precedents? Let Jacob know by tweeting him @JacobHoback.
