Russell and Duenes

The Horror that is Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Abortion Secures Our Right to Have Children

leave a comment »

The examples of irrationality by justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter within Casey are legion, but one of the larger ones is their assertion that, “[i]f indeed the woman’s interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily restrict a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example. Yet Roe has sensibly been relied upon to counter any such suggestions.”

What does this mean? It seems the Court is essentially saying that, unless a woman is free to kill her unborn baby, she might not be truly free by right to carry her baby to term. Thus, we must protect a woman’s liberty to kill her baby so that we can protect her right to have her baby.

To this, Justice Scalia properly retorted: “The Court’s contention that the only way to protect childbirth is to protect abortion shows the utter bankruptcy of constitutional analysis deprived of tradition as a validating factor. It drives one to say that the only way to protect the right to eat is to acknowledge the constitutional right to starve oneself to death.” Has it come to this? Can we no longer ground a woman’s legal right to have her baby in anything greater than some vacuous concept of “reproductive freedom?”



Written by Michael Duenes

July 18, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: