Some Supreme Court appointments actually make a difference
Articles of note: Read in combination these articles provide a quick summary of pro-life opportunities in Iowa
DM Register: Iowa Supreme Court: State may bar Planned Parenthood from sex education grant programs
While affirming that nothing in the Iowa Constitution prevents the legislature from preferring birth over abortion the Iowa Supreme Court decided that eliminating notorious abortion syndicates from state supported sex education classes is a reasonable extension of that authority, a reasonable bar in an effort not to confuse the public about established policy.
The vote was 6 to 1 with the only remaining Democrat appointee Brent Appel dissenting. He is also the only remaining judge on the court that voted in the affirmative that the Iowa Constitution protects a fundamental right to abortion, something that is totally inconsistent with the drafters, the voters who ratified it, and subsequent legislatures that regulated abortion. That ruling that set no limits to the voluntary destruction of babies in the womb at any stage or for any reason. The fairly recent ruling (3 years ago) has yet to be directly committed to by what is an essentially new court.
The ruling this month, however somewhat oblique, uses verbiage that the legislature can build on. The court’s vote is the result of the sea-change in personnel due to a death and retirements in the last three years and resultant selection efforts by pro-life Governor Kim Reynolds.
It ought to, but remains to be seen, if that “sea-change” extends to directly correcting or “reinterpreting” past error. The egregious abortion decision cries out for correction for reasons outlined in the dissent to that ruling by Justice Mansfield joined by Justice Waterman. The related article below includes a statement from The Family Leader which we critique:
The Iowa Standard: Family Leader is grateful Iowa Supreme Court upheld authority of legislature to direct tax dollars away from abortion providers
The Family Leader statement in part:
Today’s decision, however, does not minimize the need or urgency for the proposed Protect Life Amendment to the Iowa Constitution. While the Iowa Supreme Court ruled favorably today, we cannot leave the right to life in the hands of a few judges. The dangerous precedent of the 2018 Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds case remains, laying a foundation for future courts to strike down any and every reasonable abortion restriction, even those measures protecting mothers and children from late-term abortion.
The Family Leader (TFL) would seem to be the chief cook and bottle washer of pro-life activity in Iowa, dominating an organization they “heavily influenced” the creation of a few years ago called the “Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders.” Both names indicate a presumption whose reach we are unsure of outside of Des Moines. The Family Leader’s past persona along with some of the other member organizations was of the nature, in right to life movement parlance, ‘no-exceptions’ as compared to the practical “incrementalist” approaches to ultimately eliminate the abortion license to kill.
We mention those terms because some of the same coalitions’ principals were vociferous in past years when legislation did not go far enough, decrying supporters of incrementalism necessitated by the Roe v Wade judicial regime and practical politics as inculcating abortion or something.
The statement quoted above is a segue by TFL to encourage support of what is in actuality an abortion neutrality amendment to the Iowa Constitution, a concept which we support, but which is referred to by TFL as the Protect Life Amendment as if it protects unborn life in and of itself. It would not, but it would allow the legislature to act to protect life or defund abortion syndicates, or to fund them or allow abortion on demand (the current regime). We addressed the matter in these pages here: Meat grinder chronicles: Iowa failed to learn from Tennessee when it comes to ‘abortion neutrality’ amendment
Curiously the TFL statement speaks of not letting the Iowa Supreme Court decision of PP vs Reynolds be a foundation for future court decisions while in the context of a Iowa Supreme Court Decision that would never have been issued by the jurists issuing that earlier ruling and which implies a much better climate on the court for pro-life legislation. So do we have a new foundation — the reaffirmation and logical extension of the peoples right through their legislature to prefer life over death, birth over abortion?
The amendment TFL champions is good in effect but poorly drafted to anticipate resistance and requires more of a burden of explanation than otherwise necessary. In order to facilitate passage the proposed amendment arguably needs revision even if it takes another year as the wording should have been clarified to both limit confusion about what it does, putting people at ease, and accordingly limit opponents’ opportunity for mischaracterization and other mischief. We believe our analysis is sustained by recent polling that TFL, proponents of the wording in the legislature, commissioned. See article below:
Close is not good enough
Poll Shows Iowans Closely Split on Protect Life Amendment.
We believe the any proposal that takes a lot of explanation, when it is not self explanatory, is heavily burdened, regrettably so in such an important matter. Related analysis here.
