And That's Why We Love Hadley Arkes

His letter to the WSJ in response to their editorial, "Rudy & the Right." He first skewers the notion that abortion should be "left to the Courts."
Republican politicians rail against “activist judges,” but then serenely settle into the notion that this matter of abortion is somehow exclusively the “business of the courts.” It’s rather astonishing that you should now absorb the same ruling premise; a premise that undoes the logic of the separation of powers. If there is a constitutional right, the legislative and executive branches must have the authority to vindicate that right, and in enforcing it, give it scale and proportion.
He shows how many questions will come up for the President and Congress if Roe is overturned (it's not a mere matter of "going back to the states"), and without saying so reveals how cowardly are typical pro-family politicians. It's easy to say the right things and leave matters for "the courts."

He then turns to the crux of the matter:
You have taken the line for years that this matter of abortion cannot be the central issue in our politics. I’d simply offer this plea for a certain exercise of imagination: If some of us look out on the world, informed by the textbooks on embryology and obstetric gynecology, we think we have firm reason to know that these are nothing less than human lives that are destroyed in abortions.
With a minor flexing of moral reasoning, we think that the justifications needed to take the lives of these small humans must be as compelling as the justifications that are needed to take other human lives. Anyone who looks out on the landscape with that lens sees 1.3 million lives taken in this country each year without the need to render a justification. Therefore, understanding that, where would you place this matter in the overall rank of our public business? Would it be just behind the question of interest rates or the level of taxes? Would you really be surprised that those of us who see things in this way cannot quite put this matter of the “life issues” at the periphery of our politics? Where then is the rigidity or the touch of fanaticism—on the part of those who see what is there, and seek moderate steps to address it, or on the part of those who somehow cannot acknowledge that real human beings are killed in these surgeries?
On that last point, Lucas Morel at NLT noticed not only Hadley's letter, but a devastating piece in WaPo about what's delicately known as "selective reduction." The doctor's assistant describes the procedure:
It’s a very hard procedure, because the baby is moving, and you are chasing it. That is what is very emotional--when the baby is moving and you are chasing it.
Jiminy. On a lighter note, we also love Hadley for coining the term "heated agreement" --which you can observe in our household when Mr. & Mrs. W. talk politics.