Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared at Humanum Review. It is reprinted at Anchoring Truths with permission. The Tennessee law challenged in Skrmetti banned “[p]rescribing, administering, or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone,” for the purpose of (1) “[e]nabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” …
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.”
Prof. Arkes discusses “On Overruling Roe” with First Things editor R.R. Reno.
