Thanks for the exposition.
My concern goes back to the unalienable right to life. It is stated in all the Founding Documents that those “rights” which come from God, can NEVER be denied anyone, ever, by the state. It is unjust. Of course, they can forfeit that “right” by crime.
Yet, we deny, when biology proves that there is life in the womb, that right to the “fetus”. This delineation of when life begins, can’t be denied, yet we can and do let the state destroy life in some specious argument to privacy or such irrational nonsense.
I just think that it is incredible that Scalia, who denies that the Constitution is a “breathing” document, can argue in defense of abortion in any case. Look at the history of the US. It isn’t logical. And, of course, logic derives from Natural Law Theory and it is what Postmoderns abhor and deny which is also unconstitutional and creates man-made-up law which is always political and creates unequal justice.
Are you reading something I haven’t? My understanding is that Thomas and Scalia are actually the two justices who HAVE taken a position that the USSC SHOULD protect life, but striking down the states’ creation of a so-called “right” to abortion. (Renquist would have overturned Roe v. Wade but would not have overturned state laws, if I understand correctly; Roberts and Alito were not on the court when the dispute between Renquist and Thomas erupted over this matter.)
A bit of history:
The several states comprising America unanimously (but not United) prohibited abortion after quickening, while remaining silent on treatments which are now recognized to be medical abortions. The left heralds this fact as if abortions were permitted at the time of the ratification of the constitution, ignoring the fact that such treatments were marketed as preventing pregnancies, not ending them.
As the medical establishment weighed in on the unseen effects of such “anti-quickening” pills, such treatments were prohibited in every state. (It’s noteworthy that the pioneers in prohibiting such pills were the early Suffragists, who held that their use relieved men of responsibility for procreation, which would result in a large class of unmarried mothers and their children, which would in turn result in widespread poverty and the decline of standards of living.)
Would Alito and Roberts join Thomas and Scalia, in asserting that the state has no right to license abortion? If so, could the courts force Congress or several states to pass legislation protecting fetuses against abortion? Could the federal courts nullify state courts’ interpretation of their own constitutions?