Tuesday, March 22, 2005

With regards to the Terri Schiavo case, I've written that the Republicans are acting like a bunch of Democrats. In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick expounds on that theme, accusing the GOP of wanting to "set aside virtually every bedrock constitutional principle on which this nation was founded, just so members of the United States Congress may constitutionalize the nowhere-to-be-found legal principle that a "culture of life" is a good thing". Doesn't this sure sound like what we used to say about the Democrats?

How is the right's pursuit of a 'culture of life' any different from the liberal infatuation with the 'right to privacy'? Is either one found in the actual wording of the Constitution? Or are both sides merely playing games with penumbras and emanations and double-secret meanings to insert between the lines of the actual text of the Constitution what they want to see but which is clearly not spelled out? How do we say that our Founding Fathers in no way contemplated abortion as being something one was entitled to have but with a straight face claim they envisioned using Congress and the Federal Courts in meddle in a family matter?

Just as the Supreme Court discovered and expanded upon the right to privacy in order to justify all sorts of decisions sought by the left and objected to by the right, I'm sure the same thing will happen with the newly found Constitutional right to a 'culture of life'. What happens when the liberals cite 'culture of life' as support for mandating increases in public health care expenditures for the poor, for expanding welfare coverage, for mandating needle exchange programs, or for whatever it is that they want to do? What does the GOP say then?

For one thing, they won't be able to say they weren't warned...

Conservative Revolution makes many of the same points I've previously made here and here... you know, great minds...