Roe v. Wade anniversary

Today is the 34th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that -- as John Hart Ely put it -- "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."  (Or, as Senator Clinton put it two years ago, "a landmark decision that struck a blow for freedom and equality for women.")  More than three decades later, Justice (and Democrat) Byron White's observations still hit home:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

Here is a link, by the way, to the March for Life webpage.  Here is the Bishops' statement on the 30th anniversary.  Here is a statement by President Bush, proclaiming yesterday National Sanctity of Human Life day.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the Americas and patroness of the unborn, pray for us.

UPDATE: Fr. Neuhaus has a long post, reflecting on Roe, here.