I have yet to hear anyone, in the government or elsewhere, propound an alternative solution to Roe v. Wade. While I am personally opposed to the killing of the unborn, my libertarian sensibilities require me to observe that the US Constitution is silent on the matter - a ruling no one in the SCOTUS ventured when it was originally debated.
The Constitution is a document that prescribes and proscribes what the Federal Government may or may not do, not a body of statutory law concerning individual conduct with a few exceptions. The creation and enforcement of criminal statutes are the province of individual States, while individual conduct that falls under the purview of the Federal Government in the course of its prescribed responsibilities remain the exceptions: treason, insurrection, counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration. Those five criminal activities are offenses that concern the country as a whole, so naturally are Federal offenses. All others, in accordance with the forgotten 10th Amendment, are the province of the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The red herring put forth in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, is an improper interpretation; the right to privacy is meant to restrain the government from interfering in the non-criminal, private acts and possessions of individuals. If the Federal Goverment or a State government, by legislative action, determines that an action by an individual is a criminal act, the right to privacy concerning that action is void - it is no longer in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, as it has a deleterious effect upon other individuals. If an individual State determines that xyz is a criminal act, the SCOTUS may not disable that legislative action under the rubric of individual privacy, unless that criminalization is in conflict with the rights of individuals enumerated in the US Constitution.
For instance, if a State criminalizes the practice of a certain religion, the SCOTUS may step forth and strike down that law, as it interferes with the 1st Amendment. Or, if a State creates a law that individuals must open to inspection their private bank accounts to State investigators without a warrant, then the SCOTUS may strike that down as it is in conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the general right to privacy. However, if a State determines that an action taken by an individual upon another individual causes harm, and such criminalization does not interfere with an individual's rights, the SCOTUS should be silent upon that law.
Therefore, a proper reading of the US Constitution allows individual States to prohibit or allow abortion without comment by the SCOTUS - simply, it's none of their business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If only this was taught in public schools, instead of FDR being the best president ever,I would be a lot smarter than I am today! Great Blog!
Re: Roe. IT is not privacy; it is you own your body and are not required to use to sustain the life of another.
Hence, a law requiring one to donate blood to anyone including your own child is unconstitional. Similarily, a law confiscating organs upon death would be unconstitional. You cannot make it a crimiinal act for doctor who refuses to use his blood to save a patient.
IF no Roe, then a state could make it a crime to have an IUD and why not criminal negligence if a pregnant mother refuses to stay in bed under medical advice to save the pregnancy.
Correct; you should not be legally required to use your body to sustain the life of another. Nonfeasance in the case of not donating blood is not a crime, nor should it be.
However, it is a different set of circumstances in regard to pregnancy, and your analogy is invalid.
For one, abortion is a deliberate act of murder, not neglecting to do something when you could have saved someone's life.
Two, by the act of conception, a person takes upon herself the responsibility of preserving the life of that child. It is a moral commitment she has made, and therefore immoral if not illegal to deliberately renounce that responsibility.
Third, you may have misunderstood what my article was primarily about; it concerns the unconstitutional over-reach of the SCOTUS. The legality/illegality of abortion should not be a Federal issue, but in the hands of the several states.
Post a Comment