I read James Allan’s comments on my column in the Australian about the US Supreme Court’s abortion decisions with considerable astonishment – and a fair measure of disappointment. The Spectator’s readers are owed a clarification.
I never suggested that the court should not overturn its previous decisions. Rather, I simply affirmed the position the court has repeatedly stated: that stability in the legal order has a high value; and that as a result, the court should only reverse its prior holdings when not to do so would perpetuate a manifest and harmful error.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Subscribe for just $2 a week
Try a month of The Spectator Australia absolutely free and without commitment. Not only that but – if you choose to continue – you’ll pay just $2 a week for your first year.
- Unlimited access to spectator.com.au and app
- The weekly edition on the Spectator Australia app
- Spectator podcasts and newsletters
- Full access to spectator.co.uk
Unlock this article
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first month for free, then just $2 a week for the remainder of your first year.
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator Australia readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
SUBSCRIBEAlready a subscriber? Log in