Patrick O’Hannigan wrote a good piece in yesterday’s American Spectator. When pro-aborts want abortion to be a constitutional rather than a religious right, it is so. When they want it to be a religious rather than a constitutional right, it is so.

… I do not write to speak ill of the dead. My argument here is with the living.
More specifically, I have a quarrel with Rev. Katherine Ragsdale and those others who imply that anyone killed on church property automatically becomes a martyr. It presumes too much to hint that the crime scene tape used by police officers has sanctifying power, yet this muddle-headed version of “murder in the cathedral” seems to be the prevailing view…

Sadly, Ragsdale shares her peculiar definition of martyrdom with other progressive religious leaders. A rabbi named Arthur Waskow echoed her in telling a reporter that [George] Tiller was “a religious martyr in the fullest classical sense, killed for acting in accord with his religious commitments.”
That is a stunning assertion. People who think the Constitution tolerates abortion usually follow the late Justice Harry Blackmun in locating that tolerance among the so-called “penumbras and emanations” of a right to privacy implied by the 14th Amendment.
As a result, even sympathetic readings of case law leave abortion 2 steps removed from the actual text of the Constitution. Rabbi Waskow’s assertion eliminates one of those steps. By describing Tiller’s career in terms of “religious commitment,” the rabbi zips past the usual 14th Amendment “due process” jurisprudence to place abortion (Waskow calls it “healing with compassion”) under the protection of the First Amendment’s “free exercise of religion” clause….

[Photo attribution:]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...