So the Utah legislature decided to back down and return to the original abortion “trigger bill.” With that decision, and the subsequent spate of inane legislation spewing forth from the Utah legislature, the blog chatter on abortion seems to have died down. At its peak, however, there were some very profound and very heartfelt examinations of the topic.
Amanda of Might as Well Dance shared a very clear and reasonable position on the matter.
Jennifer of Jen’s Green Journal discussed the evolution of her beliefs in a very open, honest, even intimate essay.
Bob of The World According to Me has made a number of posts on abortion, most of them short, with some very canny points.
The Voice of Utah looked at the aborted Supreme Court challenge (sorry, I couldn’t resist) not from the moral perspective, but rather from a legal angle. While the author hints that while they (I’m using the gender neutral plural, as I’m not sure whether the author was male or female) might not be considered pro-choice, they and the pro-life people with whom they were conversing did not appreciate a law directly contradicting a prior Supreme Court ruling. This raised an interesting question in my mind: how does one seek to revisit past Supreme Court rulings? If this sort of direct confrontation isn’t considered appropriate, what other methods are there? After all, I like to be consistent. While I am not especially eager to have Roe vs. Wade overturned, there are other rulings I would like changed. I’m not about to say that a state shouldn’t challenge the Supreme Court with a law when it involves abortion, but should go ahead when it suits the causes I favor. What is the legal principle or strategy which we can ethically expect to apply across the board?