I'll tackle this question since I have received three similar ones since the Alito hearing's began.
A woman can be said to have a right to abortion just as much as she would have a right to decide on a root canal. The problem though is, it isn't neither a constitutional or federal issue -- but an issue of the people through their own State legislative process to determine. The US Constitution did not invest any jurisdiction with the federal government or the Supreme Court over the life and liberties of the people.
When the Constitution was finally ratified, it had nothing to say about the federal government being the sole caretaker and protector of the peoples liberties for a very good reason according to James Madison: "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects, which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people." The Fourteenth Amendment's primary author, John A. Bingham, reaffirmed James Madison's exact words during the debates and further declared that he has "always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States."
Bingham's initial Fourteenth Amendment proposal was soundly rejected because it was seen as giving the federal government jurisdiction over the lives and liberties of the people. James Madison's initial Bill of Rights was rejected for these same reasons because he originally attempted to make the Bill of Rights a limitation upon the States as well as with Congress. Not many in Congress in 1789 and 1866 were inclined to give both Congress and the federal courts such jurisdiction. Instead, the 14th Amendment imposed its limitation directly upon the States, thereby bypassing giving Congress direct jurisdiction over the deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people without due process for violation of law made criminal.
Justice O'Connor reiterates these above principles when she quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger:
Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,' or ‘common sense.'"
Bingham himself quoted Chief Justice John Marshall as affirming that any new expansive powers that are neither expressly granted, or enumerated in the Constitution, is forbidden: "The Constitution of the United States is one of limited and expressly delegated powers which can only be exercised as granted, or in cases enumerated."
So far I have highlighted the fact that the US Supreme Court was not given any jurisdiction to rule on anything like Roe v. Wade, and therefore, the ruling has no Constitutional basis for which obligates anyone to treat it with respect or dignity. There is an another troubling aspect to Roe v. Wade that has to do with justices’ vile and repugnant disregard for another US Constitution principle: Article VI. Article VI, requires: "...judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
What is very disturbing about Roe is how seven justices of the court could find it so easy to disregard their oaths. When a Supreme Court justice takes both of his/her oaths (justices take two oaths) he or she is not bounding themselves to upholding prior precedent -- but only the US Constitution itself. Justices who are unwilling to take their oaths seriously are justices unfit to sit on the US Supreme Court and render justice because there can never be justice with such justices.
The right to abortion is an important right that should be decided by those who do indeed have the right to decide it: the people themselves through their own local legislative representatives.
Leave a comment
This blogs author or webmaster reserves the right to remove inappropriate comments.