Scalia sees no abortion right in Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, during a luncheon in Buffalo on Wednesday, re-emphasized his view that women don't have a constitutional right to an abortion. His belief flies against the court's majority decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which found a constitutionally protected right of privacy that covers abortion.

"My votes in abortion cases have nothing to do with my pro-life views," Scalia said after his speech at the Hyatt Regency Buffalo. "They have to do with the text of the Constitution. And there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion."

At times flashing a prickly wit, Scalia also criticized the process for selecting new Supreme Court justices as being highly political today.

And he defended the court's 5-4 decision in the 2000 presidential election that stopped ballot counting in Florida and handed victory to George W. Bush.

The recurring theme throughout Scalia's 40-minute speech, and in answers to audience questions, was the importance of a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution.

Scalia, who is the foremost conservative member of the Supreme Court, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. .

Scalia devoted the bulk of his speech to the clauses in the First Amendment that ensure government may not restrict people's religious practices, nor impose religion on anyone.

Judicial rulings on those clauses - and the entire Constitution - must be based on their text, the authors' original intent or historical practice, he said.

In quoting George Bernard Shaw - using a phrase later appropriated by Robert F. Kennedy - Scalia said those who believe in judicial reshaping of the Constitution "dream things that never were."

The appropriate way to deal with an issue that demands updating judicial precedent or the Constitution is by legislative action or, where appropriate, a constitutional amendment.

After his prepared remarks, Scalia took questions and delved into several hot-button issues.

He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment.

The fight over abortion rights already is heating up, as pro-choice groups dig in for a battle whenever Bush gets to make a Supreme Court appointment.

Picking up that theme, Scalia blamed the the bitter political fights over court nominations on the belief that judges are free to rethink the Constitution.

"Every time you're selecting a Supreme Court justice, you're conducting a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution ought to mean," he said.

Scalia defended the court's decision in the 2000 balloting debacle, saying it properly returned authority in the matter to the Florida Legislature.

Organizers said 930 tickets were sold for the event, sponsored by the Chabad House of Western New York and the University at Buffalo Law School.

"If you want to retain the Constitution you have to allow it to change too. One could argue that amendment should be the only way to do that but, as a practical matter, our present system works pretty well."

The Amendment Process was articulated in the Constitution for a reason, and that was to protect We the People from an ever-expanding Federal Leviathan sticking its nose into every aspect of citizens' lives. Instead, we have a Judiciary Branch that TOTALLY ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and allow exactly that which the Constitution was designed to protect us. To say "the present system works pretty well" belies a satisfaction with the liberal belief that an expansionist Federal presence is an unmitigated good.

I disagree...MUD

Excuse me, but a tiny fetus barely has limbs to seize anything

Size doesn't matter. It's a seizure. A cancer starts out microscopically, and has no limbs at all. If the attachment is so small, why worry about its continuation, any more than its termination? It means a great deal, this attachment. Deep down, you realize that it does, because you don't want me to say that a State has a right to decide that it can be detached.

There are no degrees of seizure here. It's either seized or not. Size does not matter. It is indeed a seizure, by one person, of another's body, and it has profound effects on the elder's body.

"On second thought maybe I agree with you. Maybe we should try abortion rights as a state issue. Same with education and perhaps other things as well. People vote with their feet and their money as well as their ballot (probably more honestly and responsibly). A 50 state laboratory would soon decide a lot of things about the consequences of various policies - a lot better than a lot of tired old whites guys arguing can do.:)"

WOW...now I'm in trouble...LOL!! You state my beliefs on devolving power outta DeeCee as well or better than I do!! One thing that has always astounded me is the way these northeast Big Guv'ment states like New York will promote things like free prescriptions or subsidized health care but don't implement the policies state-wide...if it's such a good idea, folks would be swarming back to these states instead of abandoning them for the South where government is not quite as expensive. Meanwhile, New York gets raped when it comes to Federal payouts in comparison to the taxes they pay...doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

FReegards...MUD

Actually we all need another's body to sustain ourselves for long periods of life. Kids are not really independent until they get a job.

Kids don't physically need another's body fluids and organs, to sustain their lives. They do not have liberty, as they are not responsible. They're actually prohibited from doing things other citizens can do, simply because of their age. There is a case where liberty is infringed upon, based on age. I think if you're going to say that's ok, then it must be ok to infringe on life, based on age.

But They are also superior to persons, in that they are also citizens (born).

You: The Government has no right to prevent a person from going to see a chiropractitioner. A person has a right to see a quack.
Me: NO!!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! You do NOT have the right to be cured by someone who is not a licensed Doctor! The State laws forbid it. Texas statute law

You: I don't live in Texas. I suppose some States are more totalitarian than others. I guess a State can outlaw picking your nose, if it wants to.

Now you are showing your truly senile colors. Every state in the Union has similar laws regulating medical practice. Name your state, and we can find the relevent laws. Calling Texas "totalitarian" for regulating MDs the same way Rhode Island and Illinois and California do is mind-boggling.

A person has a freedom to associate with friends of her choosing. One of them might be a doctor who offers to do an abortion in the privacy of her home. Your state can't stop that, even though there might be a law against it. That's a different matter. the state couldnt stop you from killing your own kids by drowning them in the bathtub if your mind is made up on the matter, nor can it stop you from smoking crack if heart is set out on it. But it CAN AND DOES outlaw such behavior. It outlaws the practice, and finds, arrests and jails people who break the law! ... here is a report on Florida cracking down on unlicensed doctors ...

Unlicensed doctors shut down by State " .. undercover video shows Torres and his team busting into an operating room, relieved to see that the scheduled tummy tuck reconstruction has not yet begun-- a lucky break. "We got there in the nick of time. The victim was on the operating gurney and was ready to be cut. Literally, we caught the unlicensed surgeon with the scalpel in his hand, and she was already anesthesized, .... Valdez's unlicensed doctor and nurse are currently in jail. "

Here is Exodous 21:22
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows".(NIV)

Very good. I've heard of this verse but have not been able to find it. 2 things I look at here are "prematurely" and "no serious injury".

Using Biblesoft and looking in the Interlinear the words "from her" do not exist but were added. No big deal. But the other words around it offer no explanation either.

"No serious injury"? To who? The woman or the premature baby?
In context I think it is the woman not the premature baby the Scriptures are talking about.

Exod 21:19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed". Exod 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,(NIV)
Exod 21:21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Context wise (v 22)this passage of Scripture is talking about the woman being injured not the baby. (Premature child).

What changed my mind about this abortion issue was partial birth abortions. That I see as evil. But where Scriptually does God consider a baby a "living being"?. I don't know. I do not deal with this issue on an emotional basis but strictly upon a Scriptural basis. And here it seems God has left us to figure it out on our own. But, I hope I'm wrong here.

Actually we all need another's body to sustain ourselves for long periods of life. Kids are not really independent until they get a job. Kids don't physically need another's body fluids and organs, to sustain their lives. Young humans are wholly dependent on the care of others for their physical wellbeing. Toddlers cannot support and care for themselves. An infant cant even feed himself for a few years and does not control its bowels (diapers anyone?), and in most cases needs the BODY of the mother, ie, breastfeeding, to survive (only since the modern invention of infant formula has that biological reality been overcome). That is complete and total dependency for PHYSICAL SURVIVAL. If a 3,4 or 5-year-old is left in the woods alone, he or she would DIE. When you pull the curtain you realize there is a greater continuum to the dependent state of humans than you care to admit. Reality is messier than you care to admit. Especially the part about the diapers.

They do not have liberty, as they are not responsible. They're actually prohibited from doing things other citizens can do, simply because of their age. There is a case where liberty is infringed upon, based on age.

Come now, 4-year-olds cant vote because they are incapable of understanding the concept. Saying restrictions on child labor restricts their 'liberty' is like worrying about outlawing goldfish from ballroom dancing. In most cases these 'prohibitions' are protecting them from exploitation.

I think if you're going to say that's ok, then it must be ok to infringe on life, based on age. More poor logic. "if it's okay to restrict them from doing something they are incapable of anyway, it's okay to kill them" huh??? It is okay to understand and take into account the natural dependence and subservience of children to their parents and caretakers, when considering their rights and responsibilities, and to balance their rights and need for protection accordingly. The most fundamental right, the right to life, it the most universal right of all, extendable to all human beings. And if you dont think that right extends AT LEAST from cradle to grave, you're a real nut.

Of course, the issue here, is what is in the Constitution, not what is in the Bible. The two can vary, as I'm sure you are aware.

Yes I am aware of it. But my question to you would be "where does it vary"? From what I can see it doesn't but only in the sense that "thou shalt worship no other gods before me". I have done much thought in this area of how to run a government with this in mind and I can find no other better remedy than what we have now, Constutitionally.

Me: ", the 'right' to kill a fetus is quite an unusual one"

You: You always use the word "kill". How can you kill something that can't live on its own? It's not really alive, it requires the help of another's life, until it achieves independence.

I am merely speaking the truth, from a biological and legal perspective. Biology tells us the pre-born are both human and alive. Ending life wilfully is known as "killing".

All living things depend and are sustained by their environment. The preborn have an environment, it happens to be the womb. Most certainly the pre-born human IS alive. Just as a caterpillar is alive before becoming a butterfly, the preborn is in adifferent state of development during its neonatal life than after birth, but is living nevertheless. It has a hearbeat by 8 weeks gestation, brain waves by 12 weeks gestation, and into 20-25 weeks, studies have observed REM sleep patterns in preborn humans. The things we consider part of our living existence, primarly THOUGHT as well as movement, exist in the preborn human.

Simply because the preborn depends on its environment makes it no less alive than tropical fish that depend on a fishtank or coral reef. Take them on dry land, they die. As for depending on another's life - ALL parasites and co-dependent living organisms fall into this class. Yet you say they are not living. How can you be so sure? There are microscopic mites living in your eyebrows that depend on you - they are alive. so are the bacteria in your gut. so is the remora fish on a shark. co-dependency exists between the termite and the cellulose-digesting bacteria in the termite's guts. BOTH are alive and are independent living organisms. Lions, kings of the savanna would die quickly if you took away their environment, and the zebra and antelope they eat to live. We too would die if our sources of life support, our food and water, were taken away. So how "independent" are we really then, that merely depriving us of H2O would kill us off? How alive?

The unborn human is most definitely alive. "It's not really alive"? Well a state of total dependency surely isnt such a great life, but go to a nursing home full of helpless dependent elderly and ask the patients - are you alive? - what do you think they'll say?

With all due respect Dr. I was looking at this from another perspective. There would not be the constitution you see before us today if it wasn't for the philosophical momentum generated by the declaration, later carried over into the Constitution.

That's fine and dandy and swell. But it's still the Constitution, not the Declaration, which is the social contract of our nation.

And like I said, in this case there's no need to appeal to the Declaration. The Constitution protects the right to life (which, as I recall, was the subject of this thread...) in Amendments 5 and 14. What more do you want? Why would you rather point at the Declaration than the Constitution? I don't get it.

I totally agree. It should serve as a national compass in how we conduct our government business. Too bad it doesn't have the force of law.

BlackManWithAGun.com

This is not me, but it may as well be from the pic.

The federal government can enforce the 5th Amendment due process clause against a State, to protect persons, so the answer to your question is, if it's without due process, yes.

You can't even get yourself to say that the federal government SHOULD intervene when the state sanctions murder, thats what it is when you take somebodys life without informed consent or due process.

But the bigger point is that the federal government has the duty to protect unalienable rights and if you believe, like I do, that unborn babies are persons, then the federal government has the duty to protect their unalienable rights as well.

Staes can not violate the right to life, period.

The Constitution also protects the right to liberty, and when another life borrows your bloodstream and other internal organs for a while, and causes many horomonal changes, and even causes you to have to quit your job, or undergo a dangerous delivery of this new life, with its potential major surgery and complications thereof, it can be considered by a reasonable individual to be an infringement on one's liberty, especially in the case of rape, when the reduction in liberty is not that same person's responsibility.

There's got to be room in our Constitution for early termination of a pregnancy, after conception, but perhaps before implantation - when the complete dependency truly begins. At the very least, there's got to be room in the Constitution for that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.