Posted on 07/19/2008 5:08:23 PM PDT by Interposition
SCALIA THE ENEMY
by Judie Brown
Released May 28, 2008
It came as no surprise when a dear friend, Andy V. of Minnesota, wrote me concerning a comment Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made during an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes on April 27. Since I never watch network programming, which is, I presume, a blessing, I simply had no idea what the Catholic Scalia had said.
Perhaps you did, but in case you are uninformed, the following is from the transcript of that interview:
"What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?" Stahl asks.
"It has nothing to do with how I decide cases," Scalia replies. "My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."
If this shocks you, stay tuned – there’s more!
Paul Benjamin Linton, an attorney for a preeminent pro-life legal organization, Americans United for Life, pointed out years ago – six years ago to be exact – in an article published in First Things:
No present or past justice has ever taken the position that the unborn child is, or should be regarded as, a "person" as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the late Justice White, perhaps the most eloquent critic of Roe v. Wade. And in the Carhart case, the Court refused even to consider Nebraska’s argument that a partially born child is a constitutional person. That question was rejected for review without dissent. So much for the naive notion of "forcing" the Court to take on the personhood issue.
But there is more than silence to indicate the justice's views. Dissenting in Casey, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so."
Clearly the bandied about statement that Justice Antonin Scalia is "pro-life" is not only false but misleading to the core.
Whether we examine Scalia’s stated position in light of his alleged Catholicism or in light of his personal opinion of the yet-to-be-born individual whose life begins at the point he is created – whether through the union of human sperm and human egg or some type of reproductive technology – the justice errs.
One might wonder why it is, then, that legal scholars like Clarke Forsythe, Americans United for Life president, insist that those who support personhood for the preborn are wrong and Scalia is somehow more accurate! Oh yes, my friends.
In his recent article, "A Lack of Prudence," Forsythe writes about those who took issue with Scalia’s agreement in the recent Supreme Court decision dealing with the Partial Birth Abortion law, Carhart v. Gonzales. He suggests that we do not respect the justice nor do we treat him with the charity that is due him. While I guess that might be the perception in some quarters, I have to ask how much respect Scalia is showing the teachings of his own Church when he makes it patently clear that it’s wrong to think that we should treat human beings in the womb in the same way we treat other human beings who, thank God, have escaped the womb!
Where is the respect for those lives that Scalia dismisses as if they were simply unworthy of consideration?
Not only is Scalia’s comment on Sixty Minutes flip and downright ridiculous, as a matter of fact, it is heretical.
Yes, I said his comment was heretical and I do know what that word means. I am not calling the Justice a heretic, I am simply saying that his comment is a stark departure from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. If you wish to check for yourself and understand what the Church teaches, see this from Pope John Paul II in his May 24, 1996 address to those who attended the symposium "Evangelium Vitae and the Law,"
While distinguishing between the sciences concerned, and recognizing that the attribution of the concept of person is a philosophical issue, we must assume, as our starting point, the biological status of the embryo, which is a human individual having the qualities and dignity proper to the person.
The human embryo has basic rights, that is, it possesses indispensable constituents for a being's connatural activity to be able to take place according to its own vital principle.
Let’s say you are reading this and have little concern about what the Catholic Church teaches on the identity and status of the human embryo. You are of course entitled to an opinion on that, but what about the scientific evidence? As John Shea, M.D. wrote in his article "The Pre-Embryo Question,"
It was first demonstrated in 1980 by Jean Smith of Queen's College, Flushing, New York, that the human body has a shape from the moment of fertilization. This was confirmed by Richard Gardner, an embryologist at Oxford University, U.K., in 2002. Which side of the microscopic embryo will form the back and head are not left to later development as has been believed by embryologists, but are determined in the minutes and hours after the sperm and egg unite to form a new human being. The "newly fertilized egg has a definite top - bottom axis that sets up the equivalent axis in the future embryo." The early mammalian embryo is no longer a "featureless ball of cells."
The scientific verification of the human embryo as human being is available to anyone who has the desire to study the development of the human embryo and understand that he or she has unrepeatable characteristics from the beginning.
Among the many scientific presentations I have read, and understood as a non-scientist, is Professor Dianne Irving’s The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development.
Regardless of your preference – Catholic teaching or scientific fact – when examining the positions taken by a United States Supreme Court Justice who is allegedly pro-life, the above documentation makes it perfectly clear that Justice Scalia does not deserve that title. He may be conservative and yes, he may be a strict interpreter of the Constitution of the United States in the opinion of some, but he is not pro-life.
In fact, having thought about his most recent comments on 60 Minutes, I would venture to say he is one of the preborn child’s worst enemies.
The Constitution was written to secure rights "for ourselves and our posterity," which means, our offspring not yet born. It took an Amendment to extend legal recognition to the human status of African ex-slaves. Our own children's human status may require another.
Natural Law, I largely agree.
Just like Catholicism or the Pope in Rome? No. Just no.
BTW, in an uneven and erratic way, the child before birth is accorded some legal status at some times and in some places. For instance, an unborn child can be a named beneficiary of an insurance plan (I know one); a named individual consumer of medical services; a plaintiff in a liability case; and an heir of real property.
I wish you the best success in this endeavor.
I’ve heard her say that abortion should NEVER be allowed, even to save the life of the mother.
She makes pro-ife people look insane.
“Natural Law, I largely agree.
Just like Catholicism or the Pope in Rome? No. Just no.”
Yes, just yes. Do a search about Catholicsim and Natural Law, and, the Pope is Catholic, and he believes in Natural Law, as well.
The Ten Commandments also are based on Natural Law.
“I’ve heard her say that abortion should NEVER be allowed, even to save the life of the mother.”
btw, can you name an instance where abortion would save a mother’s life?
I have read about cases of LEGAL abortion that KILLED the mother, as well as the baby.
Even if there was a case in which this might happen - the murder of the child would be grossly immoral and this practice sanctioned by the state would reveal a satanic control of affairs.
A mother should never kill her babies. No exceptions. Thousands of mothers have died rather than allow their child to be killed by its enemies. To do so as an act sanctioned by the State leaves one aghast.
Abortion is not even biblically permissible in so-called “life of the mother” cases. We should not follow situational ethics, or the advice of the medical community, personal opinion, to make life and death decisions concerning our unborn children.
To a raving moonbat liberal baby killer, that's called "taking one for the team"
“can you name an instance where abortion would save a mother’s life?”
The reason I said that is because some people use it as a talking point, and I was trying to show that it is a weak talking point.
Well of course you are right Sun...it is the weakest argument and those using it should hang their heads in shame.
The "states rights" advocates who want the state to have the right to take away the God-given rights of the unborn are the same evil confederate scum who put their "freedom" to enslave their fellow man above this nation and above the Laws of God. God judged them and he will judge their modern-day baby-killing counterparts as well.
I’m a NICU nurse; yes, there are cases where a mother develops very high blood pressure, and the baby has to be taken early, which sometimes results in his demise.
If a condition happens really early, yes, the baby has to be taken.
If you think this is wrong, so be it; tell it to her husband and her other children.
Thank you!
This is a clear case of "double effect" and has at no time, never, been considered murder, neither in criminal law nor in Church law.
The intention is to save them both patients if possible. If the labor is induced early (which happened to me as a result of pregnancy-induced hypertension) the doctor is still trying to save both mother and baby.
Sometimes they can postpone the pitocin drip or the Cesarean until the baby's lungs and other organ systems are developed enough to for the baby to survive: in borderline cases, they'll have the Neonatal ICU all ready and work like mad to protect both patients' halthand well-being.
In any case, killing the baby is not the intent --- the intent is to do what is possible for each and every patient.
Isn't that so?
And that's why a preterm delivery that sadly ends up with the baby's demise, is never considred murder. As in "issue," that's a non-starter, a red herring.
From the mid-1800's until 1967, most, and then finally all the states of the US banned criminal abortion in their law codes. In no case was there ever a prosecution for natural miscarriage, even if the mother were arguably negligent (e.g. chronic drunkenness during pregnancy.)
You forget that mens rea -- the Latin term for "guilty mind" -- is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. This is absent in any case where miscarriage results from anything except an abortive attempt.
Furthermore, law enforcement requires the willingness of a prosecutor to prosecute. No prosecutor --- and I mean none of them --- wants to investigate miscarriages. In the real world, it's simply an impossibility. And that evaluation is based on U.S. experience for over 100 years.
If the Catholic church said that “1 + 1 = 3” and a teacher was hired to teach “1 + 1 = 2”, then he must teach that. I have no problems with a man of God saying he doesn't use the Bible or the Catholic church's teaching to interpret cases."
This is not a situation where the Catholic Church or the Bible are needed to establish by supernatural revelation that child is a human being, whether that child has been born or is in the womb traveling towards birth. It is not a matter of "revelation" or "religious authority" because the fact is well-attested-to by the rapidly developing sciences of embryology and perinatology.
It is not unreasonable to demand that the law conform to the advances of scientific knowledge.
That's perfectly true as it applies to airplane tickets, motel occupancy, and the U.S. Census; but all OB/GYNs know that they are caring for 2 patients. In the case of twins, 3.
Felons can be prosecuted for a double murder if they kill a pregnant woman and the child within her.
That's not counting pregnant women twice. That's counting the woman once and the child once. That's saying everybody counts.
"Don't know much about history," as the song says: but in your case, the problem area seems to be biology. There is no medical textbook, perinatalology syllabus, or med school course of instruction anywhere that teaches that a child growing en ventre sa mere is a parasite. This is because...
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite
"But .. the child is a human being even before it’s born .. and should be protected."
Your bottom line is in good shape. So you don't have to stay after school. Class dismissed.
You are essentially correct, but there are times when a baby is taken too early to have a chance. I still don’t see it as murder, but evidently some people on this forum do.
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.