Judge Andrew Napolitano's 'Verdict' Wrong on Many Counts

I can refer to my many postings on this site that explain John McCain's position on the life issues. He has for 25 years had a strong consistent pro-life voting record. In the early days of his political career he supported our efforts to pass a Human Life Amendment. He has always called Roe v. Wade a terrible decision that needed to be reversed. He has promised to select judges who would respect the Constitution and indicated in the last debate that anyone who respected the Constitution would support life. Now Judge Andrew Napolitano of the Fox News Channel weighs in on his segment The Verdict and while clearly understanding that Barack Obama is anti-life and pro-abortion, fails to articulate McCain's position and thus gets it wrong. In fact Napolitano gets it so wrong that he needs to take a refresher course on what the pro-life movement's opposition to Roe has meant for the last thirty five years.

Lets start with what he gets right. He correctly identifies Obama's extremism. He notes all of the things identified in previous postings o9n this site. He should have included the historical fact that Roe wiped out all state laws proscribing abortion. Prior to Roe, the state laws addressed crimes against persons. In a normal situation that would be the case if Roe was reversed. However simply because the Supreme Court reverses Roe does not mean that the court would not address the issue of when a child gets human rights. As McCain stated at the Saddleback interview, he believes that the child's human rights begin at conception. Given the advances in medical science, the Supreme Court could answer the question raised in Roe and never decided. The court could easily conclude that the unborn child's right to life is protected by the 5th and 14th amendment to the Constitution. John McCain would support that decision. He would realize that the federal question of equal protection would trump a state's rights approach. But at the same time, he and many other pro-life advocates, would take reversal and return to the states as the next place to battle in defense of life. Since the HLA is not a practicality, what else is he to say on this question. One takes whatever beachhead one can gt and then moves from there.

So Judge Napolitano totally missed in his analysis and failed to address this aspect of the discussion. Wanting to reverse Roe in infinitely better than keeping /Roe as the law of the land forced upon the country by seven non-elected judges in 1973.

Napolitano would better serve the cause of unborn children by reminding the public that a Supreme Court picked by Obama would not only insure that abortion remains legal but also could spell the end of marriage and the family as we know it.

Napolitano also failed to address Obama's desire to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.
He forgot to mention that Obama wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment so he can use tax dollars to pay for abortions.

The bottom line is that one can look to real reputable pro-life leaders and organizations to understand that there is one candidate who will protect life and seek to end abortion - that man is John McCain.