Wed Mar 2, 2022 – 7:14 pm ESTWed Mar 2, 2022 – 7:21 pm EST
(LifeSiteNews) — It’s hardly news these days that National Review is not the leading conservative voice it once was, but it’s sometimes easy to forget that the reasons for its decline run deeper than Donald Trump. This week, the publication’s “conservatarian” senior writer Charles C.W. Cooke reminded us that you don’t have to be a fan of the 45th president to suspect that William F. Buckley is looking down from heaven and wincing at what his magazine has become.
Reacting to Senate Democrats’ failed attempt this week to codify abortion-on-demand in federal law, Cooke correctly opines that the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act is “clearly, flatly, stonkingly unconstitutional.” Which it is, of course; nothing in the Constitution so much as hints at a “right” to abortion.
However, Cooke then overstates the Constitution’s presumed neutrality on the subject to argue that any federal abortion law would be unconstitutional, overlooking plain text of the Constitution that pretty clearly says otherwise:
The federal government enjoys only the limited powers that are delegated to it by the federal Constitution, and setting abortion policy is obviously
The remainder of this article is available in its entirety at LifeSite News
The views expressed in this news alert by the author do not directly represent that of The Official Street Preachers or its editors
