But North Dakotans are fighting back against her judicial activism
North Dakota is known for sub-zero temperatures and the Bakken oil field, which is helping America to achieve energy independence. But it is also one of the most pro-life states in the nation, a state where nearly all Republicans – and even most Democrats – are in favor of protecting life because they believe that abortion is morally wrong. Just last year the state legislature – in an impressive display of bipartisanship – quietly passed a series of sound, commonsense laws intended to help protect unborn children.
You may remember Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis filibustering in that state’s legislature last June in opposition to a proposed 20-week abortion ban. You should. She reaped national headlines from the liberal media for her pro-abortion grandstanding in favor of what is, for all practical purposes, infanticide.
What you may not know is that exactly the same ban – on abortions after 20 weeks – had sailed through the North Dakota legislature just two months before, and had been promptly signed into law by the pro-life governor there, Jack Dalrymple. Not only that, but that same state legislature, reflecting the value that North Dakotans place on human life, passed a number of other strong, common-sense, pro-life laws.
These new laws include ensuring that women are given full disclosure of information prior to an abortion, making sure parents are notified if their daughter is seeking an abortion, and prohibiting children who are partially born from being killed by an abortionist before their birth can be completed. Other laws ban all abortions for reasons of gender selection and genetic abnormalities, and help to ensure that women will receive adequate hospital care in case of complications after surgical abortions.
All this was too much for the filthy rich abortion industry which, following its standard practice, rejected the will of the people and turned to the courts. Lawsuits were quickly filed against several of these laws by out-of-state attorneys who flew in to try and convince local judges that the laws were somehow unconstitutional. And, at least in one case, they succeeded.
State Judge Wickham Corwin of Fargo, ruling on the validity of two laws passed by the Legislature to protect the health and safety of women receiving abortions, made the startling claim that the North Dakota constitution contains an implicit right to abortion. She discovered this “right” – which had hitherto escaped everyone’s notice – buried in what is called the “liberty clause.”
There is no such right, of course. Judge Corwin was simply legislating from the bench, in the same way that members of the Supreme Court were legislating from the bench in 1965 when they “discovered” a “right to privacy” in the “penumbras” of the U.S. Constitution (in Griswold v. Connecticut, creating the basis for Roe v. Wade). If judges feel themselves free to read into laws whatever meaning they want to find there, democracy has no meaning. Even worse, if they insist on inventing new ”rights” out of thin air, no one’s life, liberty, or property is safe from such acts of judicial tyranny. Judge Corwin’s appeal to “liberty” as a justification for abortion is, for that reason, a very dangerous innovation. In a way, it is even more dangerous than Roe v. Wade.
The reason it is potentially more dangerous than Roe v. Wade is that virtually all of the constitutions of our fifty states guarantee their citizens liberty. If these liberty clauses can be used to justify abortion, then all of the state-level pro-life victories that have been achieved in the past may be in jeopardy. Progress at the state level, especially in the past three years, has been nothing short of remarkable. More pro-life laws have been passed during this time period than in the previous decade; over two hundred (200) to be exact.