Justice Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Neither Allows Nor Bans Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | April 24, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

[thefrankbaum]

Well played. I use FR for a lot of things - expounding the meaning of law or the Constitution is not one of them.

[al_c]

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.

Planned Parenthood and other "pro-choice" advocates were recently presenting their case to the govt regarding abstinence education and it's "lack of effectiveness" and were asking the govt to stop given money to the cause. Nevermind the fact that PP and others receive 100x more from the govt than abstinence promoters. Perhaps this is the story you were watching? I'm not sure about actual dollar figures, though.

[Aquinasfan]

The banning of abortion is implicit in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble to the Constitution reveals the purpose for which the Constitution was written. This purpose includes securing "the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity," i.e., future generations yet to be born.

This would obviously include unborn children. So the Constitution was written, among other things, to secure the Liberty of unborn children. And it would be impossible for future generations to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty if they're torn limb from limb in their mothers' wombs.

[Hawthorn]

> Nothing like FReeper arrogance. <

Certain FReepers seem to believe they have an understanding of the U. S. Constitution that’s superior to Scalia’s understanding, just as others pretend to an understanding of economics that’s superior to a combination of Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. I wish it were fun to watch such swimming contests between cats and dolphins. But really, it’s sad.

[Aquinasfan]

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!

Part of the reason why the South lost is because, by the same token, some Confederate states realized that they weren't beholden to the Confederacy either.

Personally, however, I believe that the Confederate states should have been allowed to secede, since the United States was founded on the principle of self-determination. Additionally, the bloodbath that resulted from civil war was, to my mind, worse than slavery itself. Most likely, slavery would have diminished and disappeared over time, as it did in Britain.

Regardless, it's a moot point now.

[Little Ray]

The Declaration of Independence, beyond separation for Great Britain, is not a legally binding document.

[Diamond]

"...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."

A modern Roger Taney?

The Constitution says that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. His assertion, therefore, that the Constitution is silent on abortion killing rests entirely on the absurd and wicked presupposition that there may be human beings who are not persons. There is there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that compels or warrants such a decidedly non-neutral view of human nature; to reach it his argument from purported silence must simply take it for granted as an unargued philosophical bias that there may be human beings who are not persons, and as such may be denied the equal protection of the laws by the States.

Cordially,

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

It will take a father of an aborted child to bring a 5th Amendment suit on that child’s behalf. The court must initially find standing for that father.

A lawyer’s nightmare since most abortions benefit the man more than the woman.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

The inference that is indisputable is that the government has a duty to protect an individuals life, liberty and property from being taken without due process of law. When the state governments are violating that right, it is the duty of the federal government to step in and stop it. The reasoning that you guys are putting forth was how southern states were allowed to justify slavery. After the civil war, this was further clarified in the 14th amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

This clause in the 14th amendment was not even needed in my opinion, but it was put in there to further clarify what was meant in the 5th amendment. No state has the right to allow an individual to be deprived of life. If you believe that life begins at conception, then the logical conclusion to that is that abortion should not be legal in any state. The only exception that I can see justified is when the life of the mother is at stake. One person cannot be required to forfeit their own life for the sake of another.

[Timocrat]

The last thing we need is for the country to be geographically polarized. That's what leads to civil wars.

I assume this is sarcasm. What happened to every state a labratory of democracy ?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I’m no lawyer, but you’re probably correct.

[Antoninus]

Scalia is absolutely right about the Constitution.

I'll bet if they had asked him about natural law and abortion, however, he'd say that every unborn child has the God-given right to LIFE.

[mvpel]

If you believe that life begins at conception, then the above statement is incorrect. The fifth amendment to the constitution says that citizens can only be deprived of life, liberty and property only through due process of law.

If the unborn got one one-millionth of the due process of law afforded to convicted murderers facing the death penalty, it'd be a major victory for the rights of the unborn.

[Non-Sequitur]

This clause in the 14th amendment was not even needed in my opinion, but it was put in there to further clarify what was meant in the 5th amendment.

Read Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment in full: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That clause was put in there to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott (Scott v. Sandford) decision in which the court had ruled that blacks were not and could never be citizens of the United States, and by extension of the states themselves. It was needed to negate the Taney decision, and had nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.

[Antoninus]

Of course, your argument cuts to the chase, but you’ll never convince some people that life begins at conception.

Perhaps not. But using ultrasound technology, you can reduce the number of such people to a tiny, ridiculous remnant that everyone else thinks is nuts.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I’m sorry, I must not have stated my position clearly enough. I was not intending to say that the whole first clause to the 14th Amendment was not needed. I was merely referring to the part about the states not being allowed to deprive citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law. If you look at the greater context of my statement, that was what I was referring to.

[mvpel]

Gestational age: 19 weeks 4 days - second trimester - eligible for abortion on demand subject only to "reasonable regulation" with the aim of protection of the health of the mother.

[nikos1121]

Why should the supreme court dictate things that should be decided by the people.

[Caleb1411]

Watching FReepers try to out-think Scalia is like watching a cat try to out-swim a dolphin.

In some instances, like an anvil trying to out-swim a dolphin.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“What the Constitution DOES entitle one to is life..”

I agree with your point but, the Constitution does not grant the right to life; God Does. Among our governing documents, it it the Declaration of Independence that enumerates those those rights.
It’s truly a shame that so many these days overlook THAT document’s wisdom!