Past, future of Roe vs. Wade: Should, would a Justice Alito upend the landmark decision?

Washington Post Steve Chapman January 12, 2006

Samuel Alito Jr. wrote a memo in 1985 arguing there is no constitutional right to abortion, and pro-choice groups are alarmed by that document. They say it proves he’s a right-wing extremist with a “long history of hostility to reproductive freedom,” in the words of the National Abortion Federation.

Maybe Alito is secretly plotting to make pregnancy mandatory for all fertile females, as the NAF suggests. But for those of us who are inclined to be charitable, there’s another possible explanation for why he said the Constitution doesn’t protect abortion rights: because it doesn’t.

It’s true the Supreme Court has ruled it does, but that only proves the Supreme Court has the final say on the matter. The right to abortion is a wholesale invention of the court. There is no reference to it anywhere in the Constitution, and it can’t be reasonably extrapolated from the principles enshrined in our national charter.

In the history of American jurisprudence, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision stands out for its utter detachment from the actual language of the Constitution. That helps to explain why, 33 years later, it has yet to gain broad acceptance from the public at large.

. . . more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail