The American Spectator

Roe are typically silenced with responses like, “I have no abortion litmus test,” and, “judges cannot promise how they will vote.” But pro-lifers can avoid these trump cards by insisting that they are not asking how nominees would vote on Roe , but whether or not nominees would think abortion kills an innocent human being and poisons society. p>Just like the promise of strict constructionism, how a nominee views legal abortion is a factor in the stare decisis analysis, but is not a definitive promise how to vote. If a presidential candidate is willing to forswear “legislation from the bench,” he has no principled reason not to say whether judges will hold basic social conservative views on abortion, rather than merely judicial conservative views. Where a politician himself sympathizes with abortion, an added promise like this is all the more necessary to protect the pro-life movement's interests and sway pro-life voters. p> BR> Matt Bowman is an attorney based in Washington, D.C., where he litigates pro-life and First Amendment cases. BR> /p> /font> /p> br> /td>