Justice Antonin Scalia Reconfirms: No Right to Abortion in Constitution

Life News ^ | 10/17/07 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Philadelphia, PA (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia attended Catholic celebratory events on Monday and gave a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture. He reconfirmed his belief that the so-called right to abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution.

He said that notion is not guided by his Catholic views but by his understanding of the Constitution and his perspective as a "strict originalist" and "legal positivist."

"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn't say it doesn't say."

"I don't agree we are in an era of narrow constitutional interpretation. There are still sweeping decisions out there," Scalia added.

"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.

Scalia said that he also supports the notion that state legislatures should be allowed to make laws because they are closer to the people. That state's rights argument has long been extended towards overturning Roe v. Wade.

"To the extent you believe judges have the right to change law then you are in the soup," he argued, according to The Bulletin.

"Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?"

[Jim Noble]

At least 20% of regular voters will stay home if Rudy is annointed by the bluebloods.

If Rudy is nominated, he will be nominated by a majority of Republican voters.

[ought-six]

“Hillary will automatically get 45% of the gimme vote. Her opponent must get more than 45%. At least 20% of regular voters will stay home if Rudy is annointed by the bluebloods. DO THE MATH.”

Then let’s make sure someone other than Rudy gets the nomination. But if Rudy is the nominee, will you vote in such a way as to guarantee Hillarhea or B. Hussein wins?

Just curious.

[ought-six]

Republicans throwing a hissy fit in 1992 voted for Ross Perot and gave us Bill Clinton.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

I sent you a private apology for sounding loud. I don’t know how to post to all.
As for your question, it was not social conservatives who voted for Perot. It was actaully fiscal conservatives who somehow fell under a very obvious spell. It wasn’t me.

[ought-six]

Well, it’s a good thing I’m armed to the teeth and have a sh!t pot of ammunition because it looks like we’re headed for a civil war, since so many voters seem determined to make choices that will end up electing Her Thighness or B. Hussein. Good God, I did not want us to ever get to that point. Her Thighness or B. Hussein are hard-core marxists. They will do everything in their power to turn America into an austere collective, ruled by an insipid cadre of pseudo-intellectuals who hold holy the fatal mantra of “To each according to his need; from each according to his ability.”

[ought-six]

“As for your question, it was not social conservatives who voted for Perot. It was actaully fiscal conservatives who somehow fell under a very obvious spell.”

You are right there. I am related to a couple of such conservatives, and they soon regretted their choice once they saw what it gave us. I hope America does not make that mistake again.

[Repeal 16-17]

One might argue that your right of privacy in your papers and property extended to a womans body. Ok. So then my right of privacy also should extend to the substances I put into my body, which means that all drug laws should be null and void.

The absolutist "right to privacy" is only applied in the sexual context. The SCOTUS believes in sexual liberation and so wants to ban any limitations on sex. In every other situation, the SCOTUS only cares about privacy in the 4th Amendment context.

[gpk9]

"Yes, and the fourteenth amendment ordered the states to abide by those protections, too."

No, it didn't. The Bill of Rights is universal, nationwide. The states had to abide by the Bill of Rights prior to the fourteenth amendment.

But those rights apply only to American citizens. Slaves were not considered American citizens prior to the fourteenth amendment.

The purpose of the fourteenth amendment was to declare slaves born in America as American citizens, with full rights pertaining thereto.

"That means every person has a constitutional right to have their case heard in court."

No, it means everyone... that is every citizen... has a right of due process, which covers far more than a simple right of being heard in court.

And it's not "due process of the law." It's due process, period, a legal process that supercedes specific laws, many of which actually attempt to restrict or outright deny one's right of due process.

It is true however that fourteenth-amendment citizens don't have full due process rights, but only those specified by law, just as they don't have full DOI rights, but only "civil rights" specified by statute.

Note that the fourteenth amendment does not mention rights, but mentions only privileges and immunities. Privileges and immunities are granted by government. Rights mentioned in the DOI and Bill of Rights supercede government.

In a practical sense today, nearly everyone has been reduced to fourteenth-amendment citizenship. How is beyond the scope of this post.

"To do otherwise makes them persons entitled to protection under the fourteenth amendment."

They don't need the fourteenth amendment to have rights of citizens. Those rights accure at birth, irrespective of the fourteenth amendment.

Even though they technically don't have rights as citizens prior to birth, killing a human being, citizen or otherwise, without just cause is still murder.

[gpk9]

Correction to previous post:

"The purpose of the fourteenth amendment was to declare slaves born in America as American citizens, with full rights pertaining thereto."

It should read:

"The purpose of the fourteenth amendment was to declare slaves born in America as citizens of the United States, with privileges and immunities pertaining thereto."

My apologies if this drifts a little off-topic for this thread.

[backtothestreets]

Thank you too. Only when people claiming to hold precise the lives of the aborted on the merits of life itself will the religious opponents of abortion see the wisdom in the opinion you and I share. Until that time abortion will continue. It is this opinion Justice Scalia is trying to state without influence from his religious beliefs. Justice Scalia is on the right path.

[Sun]

“OT-Duncan Hunter On The Importance Of Human Life From Conception

snip

“1. Right to Life Amendment:

I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.”

http://www.renewamerica.us/forum/?date=070402&message=21

[DEUS PITAR]

Didn’t you read the fine print in the Constitution - I think it was the 8th Amendment - “And Congress Shall Grant the Inalienable Right to the People for the Killing of Harmless Babies En Masse.”

(/sarcasm).

I hope and pray that this Supreme Court comes to its senses and outlaws this totally barbaric and inhuman process.

I have a great deal of faith in Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Kennedy is very iffy however.

[DEUS PITAR]

I too am very disappointed in Rudy Giuliani in this regard.

He would make a fine President as he has his stuff together, but this “drag-queen” stuff and his stance on abortion really hurts his chances to get elected.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Good grief!

It would take too long...

Perhaps someone else can explain what the fourteenth amendment authorized nationally and how incorporation of other rights and semi-rights, and imagined rights were foisted upon the whole nation.

[ari-freedom]

I wonder how sincere is his pledge to appoint “strict constructionist” judges like Scalia?
-
if you believe that, I have this to sell you

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Salvation]

Pray for an end to abortion and the conversion of America to a mindset of life!

[Founding Father]

Actually Scalia’s view of the constitution is astonishingly liberal. If he was a justice on the early courts he would be all alone on the extreme liberal end. His view of the commerce clause is abominable.

[patriciaruth]

Roe v. Wade was not decided on a right to an abortion or a right to privacy, but by a right to self defense.

This part of the Roe v. Wade decision has been completely ignored and buried over the years.

At that time, a woman was much more likely to die in childbirth or from complications of pregnancy than she was to die from a legal abortion.

The argument was that you can’t tell her she has to risk her life to bring the baby to term. That she IN CONSULATATION WITH HER DOCTOR was the one who should decide if she wanted to risk taking her pregnancy to term.

They have also ignored the in consultation with her doctor part of the decision, too.