Skip to comments.Freedom from Roe v. Wade - (hope and perhaps promise, from "Mr. Justice John G. Roberts?")
Posted on 07/22/2005 10:53:59 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Let's not beat around the bush. Since 1973, Roe v. Wade has been the "settled" law of the land. John Roberts can help reverse that decision. That is why the Conservative movement is holding its collective breath. Likewise, that is why activists on the left are doing their best Howard Dean impersonations. A historical moment is at hand. Assuming Roberts is confirmed, he will take the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- a "conservative" justice who voted to reaffirm the "central principle" of Roe in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Not that you need reminding, but the central principle of Roe is, of course, is right of a woman to extinguish the life of her unborn child.
In light of the above, have you ever stopped to consider why it is that Roe v. Wade is one of the most studied, discussed and criticized Supreme Court opinions in history? Outside of the fact that the decision ushered in three decades of judicially endorsed murder, Roe is important for another reason. Simply put, as long as the decision stands, it represents an example of judicial activism at its worst. In fact, Roe is a perfect example of how the Court abused its power and changed the very fabric of our Republic.
Think about it. The Constitution of the United States does not contain a provision stating: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of privacy." Nor does it mention the word "abortion." Nevertheless, since 1965, the Supreme Court has decreed certain "private" activities, including abortion, should be considered "fundamental rights" under the Constitution. Strangely, these "new" constitutional rights receive the same high level of constitutional protection as those outlined in the Bill of Rights, including the textually clear rights of speech and religion. The Constitutional theory the Roe court relied upon to protect these new "rights" is called substantive due process. Under this theory, the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of "liberty" includes substantive rights that one will not find in the Constitution (i.e., right to abortion).
Despite the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the Court seized on the term "liberty" and created a new right -- abortion. This is a primary reason Supreme Court Justices should follow a coherent and consistent methodology when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. If a consistent methodology is not followed, the country is at the mercy of five Justices with nothing but subjective feelings to guide them. In other words, if a majority of Justices decide to ignore the Constitution and over 200 years of interpretive principles, then any decision rendered is subject to abuse and judicial activism. A group of Justices so inclined to ignore the Constitution may hide behind the term "liberty" in creating a long list of "rights" never imagined by the founding fathers. A good example of this approach is the case of Lawrence v. Texas. By a now familiar vote of 5-4, the Court found that the United States Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. Do you think this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they signed the Constitution? Hardly.
As you can see, a Justice who does not respect the Constitution may be prone to alter our founding document based on subjective notions of what he or she thinks the law should be. This is not a power given to the Court under our Constitution. If this approach is followed without fail, then the government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed. We would be, instead, governed by nine lawyers. That is why Roe must be reversed.
Prior to Roe, the legalization of abortion was properly left to the people of individual states. As with all issues not specifically addressed by the Constitution, the matter was decided by the people. In short, but for Roe being decided, the issue of abortion would be a political one, not a judicial one. By the early 1900's almost every state had a law prohibiting or restricting abortion on its books. By the late 1960's, a liberalization trend had set in. Nevertheless, twenty-one of the restrictive abortion laws in effect in 1868 were still in effect in 1973 (when Roe v. Wade was decided), and an overwhelming majority of the states prohibited abortion unless necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Roe changed all of this, as well as our Constitutional Republic. Instead of following the will of the people, Roe ignored the people, the states and their criminal statutes. The end result was the willful destruction of states' rights.
The day after John Roberts was nominated by President Bush, NARAL-Pro Choice America held an "emergency demonstration" against Robert's nomination. Several hundred hairy women marched in front of the Supreme Court and carried signs that said, "Save Roe!" and "Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide." Little did they know, their ignorance of history and law betrayed them.
"Our right to decide" was abolished in 1973.
Contrary to popular belief, the reversal of Roe will not necessarily result in the criminalization of all abortions. That will be a state-by-state decision. However, the reversal of Roe will result in political debates and statewide referendums. Our founding fathers defined this approach as "freedom." Conservatives will define this approach as "our prayers finally answered."
Justice John Roberts will, one day, have an opportunity to return the issue of abortion back to the capable hands of the people. Unless President Bush has misled us, John Roberts will eventually help restore our liberty. God willing, once we are liberated from Roe v. Wade, a new sign of freedom will one day exclaim:
"Our states, our votes, our right to decide."
The activism from this court has decimated the fundamentals this country was based on.
Appeasement of the left is all some of these judges seem to be worry about. Robert's kind will put an end to it.
Please sign Roberts petition: