![]() ![]() Consistent with the American tradition, this pro-life position might allow limited exceptions for abortion - for example, where continuation of the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. It would build on the modern advances in embryology and genetics, which establish that the life of each individual member of the species Homo sapiens begins at conception. The argument for this position would begin with the historical fact that, prior to Roe, the American tradition long provided broad legal protection for the lives of unborn human beings from the time that those lives were understood, in light of the biological knowledge of the age, to commence. Under this “pro-life” position, unborn human beings would be recognized as “persons” for purposes of the Due Process Clause. A second position is that the Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, laws that permit abortion. ![]() Texas when they encountered a precedent they didn’t like.)Ģ. (Not surprisingly, the justices in the Casey majority blithely cast aside this supposed regard for precedent in Lawrence v. In so doing, these justices declared, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” What this vacuous New Age declaration - which has now been embraced by six of the current justices - really means, of course, is that those justices claim to have the unconstrained power to define for all Americans which particular interests those justices think should be beyond the bounds of American citizens to address through legislation.įittingly, this radical claim in Casey was accompanied by the majority’s bizarre “Nietzchean vision” (Scalia’s apt label) of the Court’s obligation to adhere to even wrong precedent, lest Americans’ “belief in themselves” be undermined. ![]() Nonetheless, with minor modifications, a five-justice majority ratified Roe in the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Bolton, requires that abortion be available whenever the abortionist determines that it would serve the mother’s well-being.Īs a number of honest liberals have long recognized, as a matter of constitutional law, this pro-abortion position is indefensible. And even from viability until birth, the Court, under the predominant reading of Roe‘s companion case, Doe v. The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause prohibits protection of the lives of unborn human beings at any time through the second trimester. The Court invoked the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - which provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” - to overturn the abortion laws of all 50 states. Wade, the Supreme Court adopted an extreme version of this “pro-abortion” position. The first position is that the Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, laws that protect the life of an unborn human being against her mother’s desire to have her killed. There are, broadly speaking, three competing positions on what the Constitution says about abortion.ġ. To the limited extent that political labels can properly apply to judging, what all Americans should hope is that Roberts will prove to be a genuine moderate on abortion. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in his record that would remotely support the misplaced hopes of some and fears of others on that point. ![]() Amidst all the speculation about John Roberts’s views on abortion, I am certain that Roberts will not be a “pro-life” justice. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |