The leaked draft from Samuel Alito states what many expected, except a month or two early. In the document, Alito asserts:
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision….”
The draft also contains some legitimate historical details about the unconstitutionality of Roe. The early revelation allows pundits to accelerate their pleasure or pain at the sobering news. As many have noted, the release may also serve to stir the opposition into a frenzy using every ounce of apocalypticism to get the masses to see the tyranny of Republican candidates who wish to take a woman’s right to kill their pre-born. Should this be made official, the overturn of Roe v. Wade means states would be capable of offering independent opinions to restrict or ban abortions. Yet, we must remember that drafts are just that–unfinished documents. As Politico states:
“Major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled (expected by late June or early July).”
Even if we remove the uncertainty of the whole thing, it’s critical to see that this is a major advancement in the half-century debate. While the landmark 1973 decision has not been officially overturned, we can begin to see that this is already–however it was made public–a massive victory for the culture warriors. Jerry Falwell Sr., Francis Schaeffer, R.J. Rushdoony and many others fought vicious intellectual and political wars for such a time as this. Their labors were not in vain.
At this point, we should note how germane it was and is to speak on such issues definitively; how crucial it is to speak as if society’s very life is on the line; how significant it is to refuse to be ambivalent, double-minded, and politically sensitive.
What I have written in these last few years goes to the heart of the matter concerning religious leaders that failed to speak decisively on such a fundamental matter. They asserted that what we have is merely a strategic difference between Republicans and Democrats. Timothy Keller observed recently:
“I know abortion is a sin, but the Bible doesn’t tell me the best political policy to decrease or end abortion in this country, nor which political or legal policies are most effective to that end.”
These statements are made with the sentiment of cordiality and politeness. But our society cannot tolerate niceness in an age of barbaric actions. Naturally, you will feel the pull to take these causes in the name of political solidarity. But the differences between parties are not a nuance or two away from cohesiveness. They are worlds apart. The Democratic party argues for an unholy agenda of sexual promiscuity and the acceptance of lifestyles far from the kingdom. If they uphold explicitly such perverse agendas, what makes Keller think that they have a clear step-by-step process to undo abortion in this country? What have the Democrats done to earn such respect from a celebrated Reformed minister? What makes him think that they are eager to see Roe overturned? Why is Keller willing to give the Biden-Party a pass when they put into office a federal official that plays and dresses like a girl to lead our nation’s health concerns? Why would this party then use such “high-ethical standards” to pursue a humane model of ending the murder of pre-born? The answer is that Keller and many others have embraced niceness as an ethical system.
C.S. Lewis opined about niceness when he noted:
“A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world — and might even be more difficult to save.”
When you are double-minded, you are endorsing the theology of niceness. Jesus did not die for the sake of niceness. He died to change our niceness into bold and courageous prophets, priests, and kings. Our niceness was crucified together with other compromising sins. The resurrection was the death of niceness and the vindication of glorious witness to unrelenting truth in an age of lies.
Keller is correct that Jesus does not identify with a political party. True enough, but utterly unhelpful. Every sensical human knows that. But the question is another altogether: which of the two parties–flawed indeed–reflects best the pursuit of the good? Tonight is at least initial proof that one party operates with an agenda that sees transcendent ethics as a guide for societal renewal and the other treasures death as a way of life.
