Ryan Chapman makes me look forward to Wednesday mornings when I can scoop up the paper and flick the pages open to his article. Reading his articles make me instill even more faith in my beliefs as a liberal-minded female student.
Mr. Chapman asserts the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 did not follow precedents prior to the said ruling. Congress had simply turned a blind eye to the issue of abortion and women's rights and with a flourish, signed the bill making abortion illegal without batting an eye. Exactly what "precedent" was there to follow? Ignoring a prominent issue and impressing Christian values upon the rest of America?
Furthermore, Chapman states, "the decision was based not on former precedent...but rather on the justices' own biased interpretations." If this is true, then why would it not follow that a conservative judge would base his or her rulings on personal biases?
Why even label judges as liberal or conservative? No rational precedent had been set and there was no reason why Congress shouldn't have listened to Ms. McCorvey. Maybe it's women like McCorvey that can help promote the "liberalizing of the country" for us and halt the advancement of "Christian conservatives".
I find it quite convenient that Chapman wouldn't "be here today to debate Miers' credentials ... for the highest court in the land." Doing so would significantly weaken his argument. It was a wise choice.
Finally, I know Ryan Chapman couldn't understand the brutality of rape and then forced birth. I urge him to think about what this might be like for, as Byron White's loaded words so eloquently state, an "unmarried pregnant mother."
But if Roe v. Wade was the biggest "liberal prank in history," I say keep 'em coming and keep 'em coming strong.
Amanda Bell
Freshman, English Writing