The Quiet Conservative: May 4, 2007
Abortion Lies from the Left
When the now much discussed Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion hit the press on
April 18th, there were the typical hysterical reactions. There were women bloggers holding up coat
hangers and liberal newscasters and university professors swooning. The fact that five of the justices
are Catholic was brought up by the godless left; and the religious litmus test was hinted at, but not
spoken.
There wasn't much to add to the frenzy so I waited until the waters had calmed. For the national
networks and the talking heads had missed the most significant portion of the ruling altogether.
Nestled in the published opinion between Kennedy’s opinion and Ginsberg’s emotion based dissent
were the concurring opinion by Justices Thomas and Scalia.
The two justices continue to provide the most lucid and legally sound written opinions in their
decisions and therefore are continually dismissed by the socialist main stream press. The concurring
opinion here is only one paragraph long in the middle of seventy three pages of opinion. The most
important sentence of that paragraph is: “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s
abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the
Constitution.”
Justice Thomas is right. There is nothing in the Constitution one way or another on abortion. It isn't
a Constitutional matter at all! The Supreme Court invented the ‘right’ as a way of social legislation
from the bench. This is now defended by Justice Ginsburg in here decision mostly by arguing that
the precedent is settled, and that there is no reason to revisit what we already decided. In other
words, since we got away with it once, you can’t go back and fix it.
Now almost everyone believes that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. But that is not the case.
Prior to Roe individual states made the decision what was legal and what was not, the way they
decided every other statute. Laws such as what constituted manslaughter verses murder were up to
the state legislatures to write. These individual state laws controlled the practice of abortion. In 1970
Kansas had the laws on the books that permitted abortion including such reasons as for “health
reasons”. That was three years before Roe. What the Supreme Court decision did was strip the
states of the right to form their laws by the legislature. In other words, it stripped you of the right to
decide the laws of your state.
You might not have been aware of the facts of the case. But, the three leading Democratic
candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards, surely must have
known. After all, they are, or were, members of the United States Senate. They must have at least
a passing knowledge of the Constitution. Let’s see what the three rushed out in their press releases.
I lead off with Senator Clinton: “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of
Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of
women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down
a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the
mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v.Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly
personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our
constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts
and Justice Alito.”
Her argument is that since a legally baseless decision was reached thirty four years ago, and repeated
since by activist judges, you can’t change it now. Also, because judges have been added that won’t
legislate from the bench, it is important to stop that or decisions once again will devolve to the
common people. Neither Justices Roberts nor Alito wrote in the final decision. Neither was singled
out as having done anything in their appointments beyond apply the standards of the Constitution.
But they are both Catholic. Is this part of what the left was troubled by? Is there a litmus test
promised by Senator Clinton in this statement? Senator Clinton is both a lawyer and a Senator. She
is also running for President. It remains to be seen whether she is either clueless as to the
Constitution, or disdainful of it.
Next we have the statement from professor and Senator Obama: “I strongly disagree with the
Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health
of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an
alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a
woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am
extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to
restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for
other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal
rights for women.”
I won’t describe the brutal procedure of the partial birth abortion. But by no stretch of the
imagination is it medically necessary. Beyond that, Senator Obama also chooses the default position
that since it was decided once, you can’t revisit the decision. “Stare Decisis” is the legal term for
this. It is an intellectually cowardly position. The Senator is a little more open in his contempt for
the electorate than Senator Clinton, “ I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state
legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose,”. Which means you
can't be allowed to make your own laws. His further railing against “conservative Supreme Court
justices” means he cannot tolerate judges that might apply the law rather than invent it. So far we
are two for two on elitist liberals that do not want you to have any say in making your own laws.
Finally we have former Senator and Presidential hopeful, John Edwards’ statement: “I could not
disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-
considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health
of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to
lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake- starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a
woman’s right to choose.”
This is from a practicing lawyer that made millions in personal injury cases. While Senator Obama
spelled it out plainly that individual states cannot be allowed to determine their own laws, Senator
Edwards is telling you that it is vital to pack the courts once again with activist judges before the
courts can be filled with judges that actually read and apply the Constitution.
There is a lot to be said for this decision and the reactions to this decision. It illustrates that the
court’s shift isn't to the right, as the above candidates would have you believe. Instead it means that
the shift in the court is the trend back to the consideration of the law and the Constitution; not
activism and the writing of laws by unelected and unaccountable rulers. The fact the three leading
Democratic hopefuls endorse the activism, and not the original purposes of the justices, says a lot
about the caliber and character of each person. It also says a lot about what they think of you.