Posted on 04/25/2008 4:56:03 AM PDT by Caleb1411
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a CBS News interview that will air on Sunday, says the Constitution neither allows legal abortions nor does it prohibit them. Scalia has been outspoken recently about how the Constitution does not guarantee any abortion rights.
During the "60 Minutes" interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl, Scalia said the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion.
He said he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, which has ushered in 35 years of unlimited abortions, but says states aren't forced to ban abortions if the case is reversed.
"On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were ... trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion," Scalia said.
"And you're against that?" Stahl asked to clarify his remarks.
Scalia replied, "Of course. There's nothing" in the Constitution supporting the view.
Earlier this month, Scalia told students at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island that the so-called right to abortion is not found in the Constitution.
If abortion advocates wanted to create a legitimate abortion right, they should rely on passing laws in the legislature rather than asking courts to unilaterally create one, he said.
“You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea — and pass a law,” Scalia said.
Last month, Scalia made the same point in a speech at the University of Central Missouri.
"The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all," Scalia said of abortion. "It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy."
"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said.
During the speech, Scalia also rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is bound by precedent -- such as in the Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade cases.
"For me, perhaps most important of all, does the precedent allow me to function as a lawyer, which is what a judge is supposed to do?" he asked.
It should also be noted, however, that Scalia is silent on the Declaration.
"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said.
It's a matter of stating a case properly.
I just love the return of power to states! It also returns responsibility. If schools took a teenage girl across state lines to have an abortion because their state has abolished it....O what a happy day! The biggest lie in US History is that the civil war was fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights, and states lost. Time to regain that!
While I agree with you, I won't downplay Scalia's opinion. He appears to have cracked the door open on the idea that a future review of Roe v. Wade could result in its being overturned.
In the preamble to the Constitution, it clearly states that the Constitution is written and adopted for ALL people and their posterity, i.e. their children yet to be born..
I am very sure that Roe v. Wade would be overturned! This issue belongs in the state court system. It is up to each and every to state to determine its own version of Roe v. Wade. The pro-abortionists would have to fight at each state for laws friendly to its cause. It would be longggggg and very expensive. Some would allow abortions - some would not. Right now, they have the Constitution "Penumbra" as defined by a one vote majority of SCOTUS to protect them - one issue instead of 50!
My point entirely.
If the fetus is a human being, its life is protected by the Constitution.
Then maybe the southerners can get their slaves back.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits or allows for murder?
What if for example, a state decides that anyone incapable of breathing on their own must have life support turned off, or that any baby with a deformity must be put to death. Does the constitution protect these people from the actions of the majority? I would think that our laws do, and let’s face it, there are states that have some pretty peculiar laws.
I’m against abortion, but feel that it should be decided by the states.
Don’t get me started... :-)
That is exactly the point.
Bill Buckley asked what 'it' is that is being aborted, "a tomato?"
Of course, your argument cuts to the chase, but you’ll never convince some people that life begins at conception.
Leave it up to the states...and then the rest of us will decide where we live.
I heard something on TV last night I hope is not true. It said that the federal govt gave planned parenthood $300 million dollars last year? Surely, this cannot be true.
What does or doesn’t constitute murder is left to the individual states.
I agree. Murder punishments, and definitions, are currently handled by the states. It’s where abortion legality should be decided. Roe v. Wade took that power away from the states.
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.