Posted on 03/14/2002 5:50:19 AM PST by wwcc
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.
"It says what it says, and it ought not to be twisted," he said.
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.
"We have an enduring Constitution, not a living one," Scalia said.
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.
Here is my definition: The presence of a unique human genome in a unique human being.
Be my guest, attack it.
I'm not saying the Constitution is "perfect;" however, it is important that we make the Constitution cumbersome to change so as to fend off haphazard changes to a Document that stands head and shoulders above any other in accomplishing it's set goal of protecting We the People from the PowerWhores who are attracted to the confines of DeeCee.
You answer that question with your post about..."A 50 state laboratory would soon decide a lot of things about the consequences of various policies..."
IMHO, that would be a great improvement as we find out which solutions work best and they are mimicked by other States. Public Education has performed anemically since the Feds took control, and removing it from their responsibility would do much to free the States and Localities or dramatic--yet steady--improvement. Then, the best-performing State strategies would be copied and improved upon by other States.
Riparian/watershed issues would still require regional cooperation, but that beats the heck outta a one-size-fits-all, top-down EPA approach that we deal with now.
FReegards...MUD
Well, that is a whole different argument, isn't it? My only point to the original poster was that there was no need to appeal back to the Declaration for a right to life, as if the Constitution did not exist. Perhaps in this case the rights to "liberty" and "life" are in conflict, or at least reasonable people could disagree about which takes precedence. I think I'll stay out of it :)
Interestingly, I'm not sure that the 14th/5th Amendment right to "liberty" was the SC's rationale for Roe v. Wade. Was it?
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.
I'm not sure why there's "got to be" room in the Constitution for anything. The Constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Our sensibilities and wishes have very little to do with it.
If you are right that the Constitution's right to liberty protects having abortions, then the point is moot, of course. I just bristle when I hear Constitutional arguments that sound more like wishful thinking than anything else. Best,
But all is not lost. Technology works in mysterious and unpredicable ways. I would say the Internet and modern banking methods have led to more rather than less freedom. I think education may soon yield to less centralized control. Abortion is a hard one though. I think I mentioned some unpleasant consequences of 50 different rules governing it - consequences similar to illegal immigration or drug control. If I have the energy I'll try to dig up that post. I'm really curious about your response.
That's right; truth never does go out of style.
Of course, in the year of our Lord, 2002, we've all (by now) learned there're many different kinds of truth, eh?
I mean let's see; there's "Bill Clinton" truth.
ABCNBCCBS truth.
My truth; & yea, your truth, too.
So?
Which is it?
Therein lies the crux of the problem.
"As for the tactics of defeating the Left: It's important to as often as possible get conservative views aired."
Yea -- true, true...I mean, I agree.
Look, does what you advocate mean we have to continue telegraphing the enemy our every move??
Hmmmm?
We conservatives know what needs to be done; and, if ya gotta ask, I guess we could say you're not really conservative, then?
"We hold these truths to be self evident."
"Suppression of dissent begins by silencing dissent - it is the main form of media anti-conservative bias, simply ignoring our voices."
"It's about suppression, huh. {g}
That's true...errr, I agree.
Of course, there's the Sin of Omission, obfuscation, distortion, spinning, & naturally flat-out lying, too.
A host of state-of-the-art shenanigans are at the Leftist's disposal -- perfected & routinely employed against we of the Right, eh?
Suppression, yea; but, let us not forget suppression's only *one* of many slimey Leftist techniques.
Scalia's going to have a couple of their favs used against him, too; while they have a field day *paraphrasing* what he said? :o)
"Why do you think the Liberals are making a big show of Left/liberal-antigun Rosie lesbian outing? Talk about that, and pretty soon we are asking dumb questions like should Rosie adopt (blech)... and it distracts from reality of moral degradation somewhere else."
Yup; sure does.
Nevertheless, they own the soapbox.
There're many who'll sit on their asses in front of that tube, with their families, & suck in the propaganda -- permitting themselves to be influenced accordingly.
A sad truth...
"Would conservatives have been better off if that hour had been devoted to a conservative Justice explaining why the Constitution doesnt say anything about abortion and why the constituion is an 'enduring' document??? YOU bet!"
We're going to see about that, alright; you, me, & every other person on this forum. We're all going to see exactly how smart he really was.
Bank on it.
"WOSG = WiseOldSuperGenius :-)"
Maybe so.
{g}
Abortion is one of those fundamental issues like murder or slavery. It's very hard to compromise on it. I think you'd have chaos if abortion was considered murder in one state and ok in its neighbor. We tried that with slavery. Nor do I think anyone wants to dissolve the Union in these times.
The answer, if there is one is more subtle. People on both sides are going to have to realize that we are in a lesser of two evils situation and that there's merit to both sides of the argument. Abortion is a form of murder or something very close to it. But abstinance is a solution that hasn't worked in 10,000 years and won't work now. People will not lose their overwhelming interest in sex. A perfect contraceptive is a much better solution than abortion but it doesn't exist right now. And if it did many religious people would still object to it.
Only if people accept the above, or something similar, as a good description of reality can we hope to find a solution acceptable to most people.
The well-educated and well-to-do
a) have very, very, good contraceptives
b) almost never get into a situation where both the mother and father are crack-addicted deadbeats.
Having the baby is a real option
c) will always be able to find a good abortionist regardless of what the law says
| ABORTION |
Roe + Doe = Abortion on DemandUnder the Supreme Court's 1973 rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton:
The answer, of course, is D. Confused? Welcome to the world of Roe and Doe, an Orwellian place where some humans are more human than others, where pregnant mothers do not carry children, and where courts are legislatures. Today, as we continue to live in the Roe/Doe era (thanks to the Supreme Court's Casey decision), it is important to understand exactly what these decisions originally said and meant. While the Court has slightly modified Roe/Doe, the core holdings that gave us abortion on demand remain in effect. What Roe and Doe said The Supreme Court declared in Roe that the United States Constitution grants a woman a "right" to have an abortion. Specifically, the Court held that the so-called right to privacy that had previously been attached to the Fourteenth Amendment's due-process clause "includes the abortion decision." The Court went on to declare abortion not just a right, but a "fundamental" right. That is, one that a state may not restrict unless it is protecting a "compelling" interest. The significance of this classification is crucial. If a right is not deemed "fundamental" by the Court, a state may limit that right by demonstrating that its legislative restriction has a "rational basis" in promoting a state interest. What this legalese boils down to is that it is considerably easier for a state law to be upheld using the "rational basis" test than if a "compelling interest" must be shown. Only once in a blue moon, if then, would the Supreme Court ever find a state interest to be "compelling" enough to permit the curtailing of a "fundamental" right. The court in Roe doomed in advance virtually any law that attempted to prohibit any abortion. Still, Justice Harry Blackmun, in writing the majority opinion in Roe, was not content merely to declare Texas's abortion statute unconstitutional. He set forth his own scheme for legislation, the now infamous trimester approach to abortion law. Trimesters: Distinctions ultimately signifying nothing With Roe the Supreme Court found a way to outdo Solomon - it announced it would divide the life of a preborn baby into three, and not with a sword, but with a calendar. The Court decreed that in the first three months of pregnancy (i.e., the first trimester), "the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician." In the second trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother becomes "compelling" and, therefore, laws may "regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Finally, when the baby becomes viable (i.e., the baby is, in the Court's words, capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"), the state's "interest in the potentiality of human life" also becomes "compelling." At that point, the state may "regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary . . . for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." The casual reader may have the impression, upon reading this last clause, that states may make it legally difficult for women to obtain third-trimester abortions. That impression is false, because the Court saved the "fine print" on abortion for its Doe v. Bolton decision. What does "health" mean? Doe v. Bolton is the key that unlocked legal abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. It was Roe that said states could prohibit post-viability abortions except those for "the life or health of the mother," but it was Doe that defined "health." According to Justice Blackmun's Doe opinion, in determining whether an abortion is necessary for a woman's health, a doctor's judgment "may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient." Thus, under Doe, if a woman's pregnancy is causing her "emotional" problems, she may legally abort her child in the ninth month. This would be an abortion for reason of "health." Baby? What baby? Lost in most of the Roe and Doe decisions is the object of abortion, the preborn child. While the Court refers to a pregnant woman as a "mother," it refers to the baby in the womb as "the developing young" or "potential life." In addressing the argument that the preborn child is a "person" deserving of protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's due-process clause (which says no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), the Court simply glosses over the scientific evidence of the preborn baby's humanity and writes him or her off as a Constitutional non-person. Justice Blackmun drew this conclusion from three points. First, the Constitution does not define the word "person." Second, he said that the word "person," as used in the Constitution, in nearly all instances, "has application only postnatally." Finally, he opined that "throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today." This final justification is interesting. One wonders if Justice Blackmun would consider slaves "persons," given that the legal sale of human beings was also "far freer" throughout most of the 19th century than it is today. Nevertheless, the personhood of the preborn, which Justice Blackmun admitted would, if established, guarantee Constitutional protection for children in the womb, was rejected. If the Constitution couldn't protect the baby, could a state? Once it dismissed the biological fact of the preborn's personhood, the Court then had to decide whether a state could decide on its own to protect preborn babies, even if the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, wouldn't. The state of Texas, whose law was challenged in Roe, argued that life begins at conception and that, therefore, the state had a compelling interest in protecting that life. It is here that Justice Blackmun wrote perhaps the most infamous line from Roe: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." Blackmun declared that since "medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus" as to when a human comes into existence, the Court would not speculate. Casting aside the curious implication that the Supreme Court, as then constituted, would even look to theology to reach a decision, one is immediately reminded here of the California Medical Association. It said less than three years before Roe and Doe: In defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and the public policy rather than the reverse. . . . The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. Since the Court held that "when life begins" is an open question, Texas's "theory of life" could not override the Constitutional rights of a woman to have an abortion. In other words, the state could not outlaw abortion based upon its "interest" in preborn babies because its "interest" was held to be unprovable, much less "compelling." Conclusion Chief Justice Warren Burger, in his concurring opinion in Roe and Doe, wrote, "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand." "Abortion on demand" may have been too strong a phrase for the Court to accept. Yet, 36 million abortions later, it's difficult to characterize the system that the Court created in any other way. Because of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, any woman may legally abort her child at any time before her baby is born. © 1996, American Life League, Inc. |
ROE and DOE gave us this:
I said abortion was a form of murder and I meant it. I don't believe a newly fertilized egg is a human being. I do believe a fetus a few days from birth is. No one can tell when the transition takes place so it is impossible to say exactly when an abortion becomes murder - although, to me, morning after pills are not. Decent contraception is not.
But that wasn't the point of my post.
I'm not religious, not dogmatic, not squeamish, and have a pretty good grasp of history. Human beings have been killing each other for all sorts of reasons forever. My view is that, in that light, abortion is not so difficult to accept. I also believe that population control is a necessity.
Again I degress. It's hard not to. I believe a compromise on this issue is important for the future health and welfare of the country. I believe there must be a compromise since neither side will ever convince the other to convert. And finally I believe that no compromise is possible until/unless each side is willing to recognize that the opposing arguments have merit.
I don't believe the compromise has to take the form of Roe v. Wade. I don't know what form it should take. That's for future generations and smarter people to iron out.
But there is consensus that third trimester abortions is indeed murder as illustrated above.
Would you support a ban on third term abortions ecxept for the life of the mother?
But with some additional caveats. I can think of rape situations where a pregnant mother might not have access to an abortionist until the third trimester. Perhaps a prospective mother might not find out until the third trimester that her fetus is horribly deformed. Reality is messy. But, generally speaking the answer is yes.
I'll go even farther. As contraceptives get better I would be more and more opposed to abortion - even in the second trimester. The sooner we can terminate an unwanted pregnancy the better.
It's mostly the poor and uneducated who are so irresponsible as to wait until the third trimester to seek an abortion. I'm not sure that laws banning legal abortions during this period would have any effect on such people. They'd just return to the coathanger-butcher era.
I'd like to believe that education and easy availability of both abortions and contraceptives would help but I'm not sure. That's where we need real-life experiments in various states - or perhaps there is already good evidence and I'm unaware of it.
There are costs involved in being pro life and if you're not willing to belly up to the bar, then you can be called a hypocrite. We belly up but being pro life and socialism are not synonomous. Creating life incurs responsibilities and one of those is nurturing that life.
Even if you don't grant that there is a class of irresponsibles. A fairly substantial class. I don't think such people would become responsible simply because third trimester abortions were legally banned. Any more than irresponsible drunks stop driving because drunk driving is banned. Something more would be needed. Any suggestions?
I'd like to see mandatory, free pregnancy tests for all women who miss two periods in a row. If they're found to be pregnant they'd have a two month window to obtain an abortion. After that severe penalties would be imposed.
That's my line of reasoning. Just a beginning.
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.