A Stitch in Haste

This time it's James Q. Wilson (WSJ -$):

Suppose, in response to a lawsuit brought against the South Dakota law, Roe were overturned. Abortion would not disappear. Women would not visit quack doctors or travel to Sweden. Abortion would be legalized in many states (it was legal in five before Roe was decided), but having been made legal by state legislatures, the laws would, as in Europe, accommodate the diverse views of proponents and opponents.

How many times are conservatives (and some libertarians) going to repeat this lie?

If Roe were overturned, Congress would immediately pass and the President would immediately sign (at least this Congress and this President would) a Federal Right to Life Act, which would in turn be upheld by the Supreme Court (at least this Supreme Court would) as a valid exercise of the Commerce Power.

Don't believe me?

Still don't believe me?

How about now?

It's bad enough when people worship the false god of federalism (do you really care whether your rights are being trampled by the federal government or "merely" the state?). But it's even worse when people invoke a federalism that simply does not exist.

It's perfectly rational to oppose Roe. It's not at all rational to oppose it on federalism grounds.

More thoughts from Rossputin.