Justice Scalia: Abortion Not Prohibited in Constitution

**WASHINGTON — The Constitution doesn’t prohibit abortion any more than it allows it, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says in a television news interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Scalia told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that he may be conservative, but he is not biased on issues that come before the court. “I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases,” Scalia said in excerpts released Thursday.**

Scalia replied, “Of course. There’s nothing” (in the Constitution to support that view)

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352501,00.html

What else can you say other than you either love him or hate him.

only problem is that he is a catholic and is obligated to do everything he can to protect innocent life. we will not find all the answers to our problems inside the constitution.

one way to end abortion is to make abortion a state issue and not a federal one. this is the direction they will most likely go.

He’s right. Murder isn’t illegal in the Constitution either. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit murder any more than it allows it.

Murder is normally handled by the states.

If you want abortion to be addressed in the constitution specifically, you really need to vote in an amendment.

Well, of course he is correct. That is why Roe v. Wade should be overturned - it declared a “right” that didn’t exist. And, that is why we will need a Constitutional Amendment extending the basic right to life to the unborn - then the Constitution would prohibit abortion.

Why would anyone “hate him” for judging the constitutionality of laws based on the Constitution? :stuck_out_tongue: I’m pretty sure it is his job, and he is doing it well IMO.

That would be the effect of repealing Roe v. Wade.

It’s hard to know whether that will ever happen. I think the repeal of Roe v. Wade is more likely than a constitutional amendment banning abortion/ extending the definition of “life” to the unborn. Unfortunately the notion that abortion is a “right” and that a fetus is not a “person” has taken root rather firmly among a significant part of the population.

One interesting recent development comes from some African-Americans that are calling on the US government to cease funding Planned Parenthood because, in their view, PP is targeting African-Americans for abortions, and apparently there may be some evidence for this, hence their conclusion is that the policy is “genocide”. I guess we’ll see what happens…

But in the article he said he wouldn’t impose his personal views, so perhaps he is of a different mind.

[quote=BioCatholic]What else can you say other than you either love him or hate him.
[/quote]

He seems to be something of an enigma. I don’t have any opinion regarding him.

The problem is that if Roe v. Wade is struck down, most states will simply legalize abortion on their own. Prior to Roe v. Wade, many states were already stating to decriminalize abortion on their own accord. The Catholic Church was probably the only entity that saw where the nauscent pro-abortion movement was going and was already beginning to mobilize her resources, even in the mid-1960s. The Roe v. Wade decision, which not only struck down existing abortion laws but legalized the procedure at any point in a pregnancy, was far more radical that what even the pro-abortion activists ever dreamed since they were only advocating decriminalization.:frowning:

Of course, he is obligated to do anything that he can morally, which of course does not include being dishonest about his interpretation of the constitution.

Actually, if your read the Roe summary, it didn’t prohibit any regulation of abortion:
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

  1. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

© For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

However, in application, it obviously did lead to a complete opening of the abortion floodgates.

As far as your earlier comment about the overturn just leading to states legalizing in on their own, that is not the case. The states that want to keep abortion legal will do absolutely nothing to change their laws. What the overturn would do is allow states to regulate and/or proscribe abortion. I don’t know how many states would do this, but it would still be a better situation than we have today.

That said, I agree with MelanieAnne that the likelihood of Roe v Wade being overturned is probably pretty low. The only way to insure an abortion ban is to amend the Constitution.

Exactly. As a Catholic Supreme Court Judge, he needs to honestly interpret the Constitution. Even if a judge was against abortion and there actually was a right to abortion in the Constitution, he would be powerless to overturn it. There would be nothing immoral about upholding the right, because it is his job.

Well… I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t see how a catholic judge could “uphold” something evil like that. He could perhaps abstain from the case, or find a legitimate legal argument against it. I just don’t think he could make up something he knew was a lie.

Actually, if you read Doe v. Bolton in addition to Roe v. Wade, it does allow for abortion at any point for any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

In Christ,
Rand

The ends do not justify the means. A rather catholic principle.

It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and federal laws, not to impose their own views via judicial fiat. As a justice you cannot morally invent new law just to fit the principles you believe in.

The Roe and Dolton decisions conjured new law out of thin air. This was a severe injustice and usurping of the separation of powers established in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the US population mostly has bought into the idea of judges ruling based on their own ideas of right and wrong instead of based on the law, so Congress is made up of people who feel the same.

Want sanity to return to the legal system? Vote for Presidents who commit to ‘strict constructionists’ in their nominees. Then vote for Senators who will CONFIRM such nominees instead of bury them in commitee indefinately.

Once abortion is returned to being an issue detrmined by the Legislative Branch, we can have a more constructive public debate. Right now, everybody sees Congress as irrelevant to abortion and catholics justify their votes for pro-abortion Senators and Reps on that basis.

Exactly. As a Catholic Supreme Court Judge, he needs to honestly interpret the Constitution. Even if a judge was against abortion and there actually was a right to abortion in the Constitution, he would be powerless to overturn it. There would be nothing immoral about upholding the right, because it is his job.

as a human being created in the image of God, you are obligated to protect innocent life. it’s not about being catholic, it’s about the natural law which all are obligated to obey.

what you are saying is that the nazi soldiers were justified because it was their job. this isn’t the case. we all are obligated to do the just thing. we can’t be duplicitous.

He could abstain, but if an amendment was added, God forbid, that clearly stated a woman’s unquestionable right to an abortion, I don’t see what legal argument a Supreme Court justice could make against it. They are not in a position to overturn or defy constitutional amendments. They have to judge a case based on the Constitution, not on their personal feelings or faith.

[quote=Dee Dee King]as a human being created in the image of God, you are obligated to protect innocent life. it’s not about being catholic, it’s about the natural law which all are obligated to obey.

what you are saying is that the nazi soldiers were justified because it was their job. this isn’t the case. we all are obligated to do the just thing. we can’t be duplicitous.
[/quote]

Then, I guess you are saying that a faithful Catholic should not be a judge, in that case. Judges have to adjudicate based on the laws of the land.

In the same manner, the judge in question would have to do the same thing that the nazi soldier should have done - disobey orders and be put in jail (impeached/removed) or resign his post.

Let’s see the legislators, such as all those Catholics in the US Senate, take their faith seriously before we worry about the Supreme Court. Just my 2 cents.

Scalia’s tendency is to oppose any restrictions on government and to accept all sorts of government restrictions on citizens.

Although he’s antiabortion, it fits his agenda to let governments continue to allow abortions.

And the factual basis for this statement is ???

Exactly. As a Catholic Supreme Court Judge, he needs to honestly interpret the Constitution. Even if a judge was against abortion and there actually was a right to abortion in the Constitution, he would be powerless to overturn it. There would be nothing immoral about upholding the right, because it is his job.

i hope your kidding. if a catholic nazi soldier puts jews in a gas chamber, can he do it because he’s just following orders?

of course not. in the same way, a catholic judge has the obligation to protect innocent life. doesn’t matter what the constitution does or does not say on the matter. otherwise, there is no point of having a constitution or judges.

according to your logic, pilate is not guilty of handing Jesus over to be cruxified because the Jews killed him.

scalia may allow states to decide as a way of protecting innocent life because the current abortion laws would be overturned in many states.

this is basic moral theology stuff. talk to a priest about it.

Barbarian observes:
it fits his agenda to let governments continue to allow abortions.

And the factual basis for this statement is ???

His judicial history. For example, he led the court in rejecting the Religious Liberties Restoration Act, which among other things, guaranteed the right of students to bring a Bible to school, and to wear religious articles or marks in open view.

His argument was that it limited the power of government. No kidding, it did. And should.

BTW, it’s not controversial. When it was declared unconstitutional, President Clinton used an executive order to allow the Justice department to intervene in such cases. And President Bush has allowed that order to stand.

Scalia is the least libertarian justice on the court, and the one most likely to favor government over citizens.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.