Hadley Arkes
June 30, 2023
'Dobbs' a Year Later: The Lady in the Hat and the Vase
Hadley Arkes reflects on the year since the overturning of "Roe v. Wade" and unpacks the next steps a brave judge could take in protecting the pre-born.
March 24, 2023
My Warm Up for Judge Duncan—and What Next for Stanford?
Hadley Arkes shares his own experience with student protests at Stanford Law and asks how its administration will respond to the next incident.
February 10, 2023
Is Conservative Jurisprudence Renouncing Moral Reasoning?
Prof. Arkes argues that moral judgments, rather than belonging to legislators instead of judges, are an essential - indeed inescapable - part of the work of a judge, especially in recognizing the most basic facts that bear on their judgments.
January 18, 2023
Born-Alive Act Redux!
Prof. Arkes reflects on his work crafting the Born Alive Act and takes some time to analyze the latest version of the Act, to him the best ever.
October 12, 2022
Protecting Babies Who Survive Abortions Is the First Step
Prof. Hadley Arkes responds in the WSJ explaining how reviving the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could prove the best strategy for Republicans in Congress.
June 24, 2022
After Dobbs: The End of the Beginning
James Wilson Institute Founder Hadley Arkes reflects on the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
May 31, 2022
The Conservative Legal Movement at the Edge of Schism
James Wilson Institute Founder Hadley Arkes writes for Public Discourse about the future of the pro-life movement after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
April 13, 2022
What the Hearings Missed
In the aftermath of Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, Hadley Arkes analyzes the Senate hearings. Despite some well-timed questions, Republicans ultimately missed their chance to put Judge Jackson on the record defending the right to kill unwanted children even after birth.
March 8, 2022
Once More Unto the Breach: Arkes v. Whelan on the Overruling of Roe
In a response to Ed Whelan’s critique of “On Overturning Roe,” Prof. Arkes insists that the moral argument against Roe is the only logical one for judges who believe in the deep wrong of abortion. The pro-life cause rests on objective moral truths, not on value judgments, and as a result does not require judges (as Whelan claims) “to read their own moral convictions into the Constitution.”
