The First Rule of Law: Protect the Innocent

Published on December 3, 2021

WORLD Opinions

By now, with the Dobbs v. Jackson oral argument in the rear-view mirror, the Justices of the Supreme Court will have met and cast their votes on the future of abortion in America. One can only pray that in the inner chambers of the Supreme Court, the process of assigning drafts that will serve as Roe’s obituary has begun. Oh God, let it be so.

I am eager to say good riddance to Roe. The scourge of this abomination is comparable only to America’s other most horrible sin—slavery and the regime of racial supremacy. Roe v. Wade has torn apart our country politically and defined cultural battles for a generation. But it has also led us to question our national identity and whether the project of constitutionalism could endure as a legitimate project alongside what is, indisputably, the legally codified killing of unborn persons.

The response to the obtuse, rogue constitutionalism set forth in Roe and cemented by its progeny in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is not to jettison constitutionalism. It is, instead, to return to a just constitutionalism—one that interprets the Constitution according to text, structure, and original meaning.

Click here to read the rest of this piece at WORLD Opinions.

Andrew T. Walker is the managing editor of WORLD Opinions and serves as associate professor of Christian ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also a fellow with The Ethics and Public Policy Center. He resides with his family in Louisville, Ky.

Most Read

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Sign up to receive EPPC's biweekly e-newsletter of selected publications, news, and events.


Your support impacts the debate on critical issues of public policy.

Donate today

Related Publications

There’s Only One Way to Defuse Supreme Court Battles: Scale Back the Court’s Role in…

Henry Olsen

News that Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire has predictably sparked discussion of a bitter — if likely futile — battle over the Senate confirmation of his successor. The dreary inevitability of such fights should cause everyone to reconsider their proximate cause: the dramatically expanded role the court plays in our democracy today.


The Washington Post / January 27, 2022

What Will We March for Next Year?

Gabrielle Girgis

If Roe is overturned, this year’s national March for Life will go down as a historic one. Let us hope to see in future years a shift to marching in our home states, for the recognition everywhere of a new vision of America, one which upholds the true rights of women and children, and our duties toward them.


Newsweek / January 24, 2022

Exclusive: Virginia Attorney General Files to Remove State Support from Pro-Abortion Dobbs Brief

Alexandra DeSanctis

New Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares has filed a legal motion seeking to remove the state from a pro-abortion amicus curiae brief filed at the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.


National Review Online / January 21, 2022

The Pro-Life Movement Is Profoundly American

Alexandra DeSanctis

The fight for life is the most recent effort to ensure that our country abides by the solemn words of the Declaration of Independence.


National Review Online / January 19, 2022