In his most recent article for Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro offers a rebuttal to the “sky is falling” analysis pro-choice supporters foresee. Consider:
If Roe were overturned, the people in each state would decide abortion policy for themselves. Voters in California would decide abortion policy in California; voters in Alabama would decide abortion policy in Alabama. Some states would likely restrict abortion heavily; others would allow free access to abortion. Instead of a broad national answer dictated by the Supreme Court, we would have a plethora of answers dictated by the people.
I actually agree with Mr. Shapiro on this point. Federalism is an amazing experiment, producing a broad spectrum of data points on the issues facing our nation. However, perhaps a refresher of Mr. Shapiro’s words during last year’s presidential campaign could provide some insight.
With the judicial branch acting to usurp legislative power on this issue, a federal amendment is no longer optional but is a necessity in order to protect marriage.
I suspect Mr. Shapiro would defend the difference in his statement with a deeper analysis of judicial activism, but I’m not buying it. This is little more than federalism when it’s convenient and agreeable. Whose words to better refute Mr. Shapiro than Jonah Goldberg, who wrote this about the FMA when it first appeared.
You can’t favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like. Experimentation means allowing local communities to make mistakes.
Should I read anything into the obvious conundrum of Mr. Shapiro’s argument? He supports federalism for abortion, with the expectation that it would remain legal in most, if not all, states? But he thinks federalism isn’t sufficient for same-sex marriage? Either I’m reading it wrong and he’s only left his federalist pro-life argument at an early stage that would eventually lead to a constitutional amendment defining a fetus as a human being from conception, or he’s more worried about the negative impact of same-sex marriage than abortion. How is that logical? One caveat: convince me without resorting to the alleged judicial activist disparity, since the legislators in this are just as activist.