The Constitution

 

After his ignoble disgrace, Satan was being expelled from Heaven. As he passed through the Gates, he paused a moment in thought, and turned to God and said, “A new creature called Man, I hear, is soon to be created.” “This is true,” He replied. “He will need laws,” said the Demon slyly.

“What! You, his appointed Enemy for all Time! You ask for the right to make his laws?”

“Oh, no!” Satan replied. “I ask only that he be allowed to make his own.”

It was so granted.

― Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.

 

Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it as a “living document,” as “progressives” like to call it.

This “living constitution” argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”1 Obama, formerly a law professor, obviously must know that this “right” does not actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air in its efforts to justify the most illogical, sloppily written opinion that it has ever produced.

Creating a Constitutional Right to Abortion

In the 1960s, revolution ― especially of the sexual variety ― permeated the air, wafting even into the hallowed chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States. The justices set about finding a means by which they could enact a far-reaching “progressive” agenda and concluded that extending the right to privacy beyond its natural and legitimate dimensions would be the ideal means for accomplishing this objective.

Of course, we do indeed possess an authentic right to privacy, founded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from, among other things, unreasonable searches and seizures. Others enjoy this genuine right to privacy, including married couples, doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, people engaging in business transactions, and priests and penitents.

But immoral and deadly activities require a manufactured legal cover. As the Gospel of John says, “The light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (3:19-20).

The Courts Extended the Right to Privacy

Eventually, the courts found the perfect segue into creating a right to abortion in Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision overturning a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale or distribution of birth control devices.

The court system of the State of Connecticut correctly believed that the use of contraceptives would eventually lead to the breakdown of the family and the degradation of marriage. In fact, the state’s Supreme Court had already turned back several constitutional challenges to the law. But it could not withstand an activist U.S. Supreme Court, which handed down its Griswold v. Connecticut decision on June 7, 1965. The majority found that the Connecticut law violated the “right to marital privacy,” which was found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg thought that this protection might lie in the Ninth Amendment, and Justice John Marshall Harlan speculated that it might lie in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

But nobody was really sure.

supreme court

In Griswold, Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe v. Wade, wrote:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy … does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have indeed found at least the roots of the right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, and in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.

In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “With all due deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.”

The stone was rolling: the Supreme Court quickly expanded the right to purchase and use contraceptives from married to unmarried people in its 1972 decision Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). The third word in the “right to marital privacy” quickly disappeared. Soon after, of course, came the January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which have led to the extermination of nearly one-sixth of the American population under a supposed constitutional right to abortion.

This “right” had escaped undetected by two centuries of legal scholarship, so to justify it the justices once more turned to the nebulous privacy “right.” The Legal Times exposed the negligence of the reasoning process of the justices: “Looking back on that argument, [Sarah Weddington] laughs as she recalls that Justice Potter Stewart asked her where in the Constitution she found the “right” to abortion she had so fervently argued. “Any place we find it will be okay with you, right?” Stewart asked Weddington.”2

The Illicit “Right” to Privacy Leads to Other Injustices

The paramount damage done by the illicit privacy “right” is to the cardinal virtue of justice, “The moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor” [Catechism, ¶1807].

The best way to determine whether or not an activity should be legal is to determine whether or not it honors justice.

Close up on the scales of justice on a small bronze statue over a blue background with copy space conceptual of law and order

When people claim a “right” to privacy in order to cover illicit and sinful actions, such as abortion, justice always suffers grave damage, because the rights of God and of other persons are simply disregarded. Some examples:

  • Partial‑Birth Abortions and Starvation Deaths. Nurses working at Calgary’s Foothills Hospital were forced to assist in partial‑birth abortions over their strenuous objections in 1999. The hospital starved to death all babies surviving their abortions, some of whom were aborted at full term. The Calgary Regional Health Authority, which oversees the Foothills Hospital, filed suit against the newspaper that exposed the killings in order to “protect the privacy of its patients and staff.”3
  • Child Pornography. United States District Judge Stanley Sporkin overturned a Congressional child pornography statute, holding, “Many of the artists and adult models engaged in sexually explicit visual imagery have an interest in maintaining their anonymity to avoid stigmatization, harassment and ridicule from others.” The American Library Association (ALA) cheered this decision and, within days, porn shop operators specializing in child pornography threatened legal action against local citizens who photographed their patrons.4
  • AIDS. The powerful homosexual lobby has taken the quest for absolute privacy to a life‑endangering extreme. In most states, a physician cannot even inform another doctor that a referred patient has AIDS under pain of losing his license to practice. A doctor cannot even tell an infected man’s wife that he has AIDS, thereby potentially sentencing her to certain agonizing and lingering death in the name of privacy.5
  • Frozen Heads and Other Body Parts. It has even been suggested that the right to privacy be extended to cover those who want to be frozen in liquid nitrogen before they die in the hope of being revived in future centuries. California’s Alcor Company was investigated in 1991 for severing Dora Kent’s head before she was dead. The primary argument in defense of this bizarre incident was the allegation that people should be able to do anything they want to with their own bodies ― in private, of course.6

Every American cherishes his privacy. Everyone believes that “a man’s home is his castle,” and almost everyone wants the government to interfere with his private life as infrequently as possible while still maintaining society’s fabric.

Since Americans value the concepts of “privacy,” “freedom” and “choice,” anti‑lifers illegitimately extend them to cover their own behavior. Thus, they label any opposition to abortion, homosexual acts, euthanasia, and other abuses “intrusive,” “anti‑freedom,” and “anti‑choice.”

Takeaways

right to abortion Pro‑lifers and other pro‑family activists must not feel guilty in the least when opposing abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts, child pornography and other hideous sins and crimes of the extreme left.

After all, anti‑lifers simply use the “right” to privacy as a license to abuse ― and kill ― other human beings.

This is not a constitutional right to abortion but rather a twisting of the language Constitution for ideological purposes.

The great weakness of the illicit privacy right is becoming more and more obvious. The more illicit individual freedoms we demand, the less genuine individual freedoms we actually have. We cannot walk down the street in safety, we cannot drive without being endangered by road rage and drunks, and our children cannot even attend public schools without putting their lives and their souls in danger.

If the anti‑lifers have their way, they will continue to extend the “right” to privacy until it destroys any chance we have of living together without seeing each other as mere objects to be exploited for personal pleasure and gain. The supposed constitutional right to abortion is just a beginning.

 

Endnotes

[1] President Barack Obama, on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2012.

[2] Legal Times, March 4, 1985, page A35.

[3] “Personal Qualms Don’t Count: Foothills Hospital Now Forces Nurses to Participate in Genetic Terminations.” Alberta Report, April 12, 1999; LifeSite Daily News, April 29, May 6, and May 7, 1999.

[4] “Part of Child Pornography Law is Overturned.” The New York Times, May 28, 1992; Samuel Francis. “Librarians Work to Overturn Child Porn Law.” Conservative Chronicle, June 17, 1992, page 30.

[5] Senator H.L. Richardson of the California State “AIDS ― Deadly Disease with Civil Rights.” National Federation for Decency Journal, August 1987, page 13.

[6] Jacob Sullum. “Cold Comfort.” Reason Magazine, April 1991, pages 22 to 29.

41 Comments

  1. Patty Erickson on September 6, 2018 at 1:36 PM

    Does anyone believe that a woman has a choice when it comes to her body. Really!! I don’t like wearing seat belts. A wreck hurts no one’s body but mine. Government says I must wear them. Abortion kills another person other than the mother. Woman wants to kill herself. The law steps in and stops her.

  2. Kristina Stauffer on April 4, 2019 at 2:49 PM

    If suicide is illegal than why is abortion not illegal? The reason abortion should be illegal is because it violates the person’s right to life. If a person (born or unborn, conscious or unconscious) has their right to life violated then that person is basically being treated like they have no rights at all.
    People get upset if a person abuses or neglects an animal. But if someone kills an unborn child they say that it is no one’s business because women’s rights. Maybe you don’t know this but many people who are aborted are girls or “little women”. What about their rights? Their most basic and fundamental right (the right to life) was violated. And it happens every day all over the world.

  3. Coles C. on May 15, 2019 at 7:12 PM

    What you said about doctors not having to report someone with AIDS is not true. Someone has to report it to the CDC, and in most states if a person is diagnosed and doesn’t tell their significant other then they can go to jail. They don’t have to personally tell them, but they have to at least arrange for a notification that basically says “someone you have been intimidate with has been exposed to HIV, please get tested”.

    Also these are all extreme situations—what about people born to people with HIV? Why would you assume they committed a sin to get infected?

    Also, if we ban abortions then we have the moral responsibility to help ensure the children are able to be taken care of. So why oppose funding for healthcare access which could have prevented pregnancies to begin with? Also the Medicaid laws are being destroyed in states, a lot of provisions for kids with special needs are gone or severely deficient. Plus the extra expenses associated with these children. How can we force someone to have a child with SEVERE disabilities without making sure they they are provided with the means to take care of the child they were forced to keep. And if even if they gave them up for adoption, how is that not also cruel knowing that the child will likely never be adopted by anyone? Plus whoever does adopt has to pick up the tab.
    How can we force someone to have a child period if they can’t afford it. So even if it’s not their fault they are pregnant? Or let’s say they’re in sin, but who is to say that they know any better?
    It just seems very contradictory. We don’t want people to have birth control, but we don’t want people to have abortions, and then we don’t help them take care of their children.
    In general I don’t think we need to focus on banning things. I think we need to focus on preventing the situations that lead to a woman feeling that they need to make this decision. I think by putting blanket laws on things, we don’t account for some very extreme, unfortunate situations. There is a separation of church and state. So we can’t force someone who isn’t Christian to act like a Christian. Instead connect with people and help impact their lives and gives the best chance for them to learn how to make better decisions to begin with.

  4. Christine on May 22, 2019 at 2:52 PM

    The biggest problem here is the way things are phrased. A “woman’s right to choose” is a term coined by feminists, and if you disagree with any form of abortion, you’ve fallen into their trap, the trap being that women shouldn’t have the right to make choices. Of course women have the right to make choices, just as men do; the problem with abortion is that women aren’t making choices involving *their* bodies, they’re making choices involving the body of the baby growing inside them, which isn’t their life, it’s the life of their child. Women don’t have the right to do whatever they want either, just as men don’t. If a woman chose to go to the doctor and had her arms and legs amputated, the doctor would refuse. If a woman was sick of living and went to the doctor and asked to be aborted, the doctor would refuse. If a woman said “it’s my body, I don’t want to wear a seat belt, the cop would still write her a ticket, and it would hold up in court.

    • Aiden on August 19, 2020 at 5:45 AM

      We can’t pretend that the fetus and the person carrying it are completely separate from each other, when really, they’re vastly interconnected. A fetus requires pieces of the mother’s body to survive and grow, it requires taking space and energy and nutrients away from the mother. If someone was dying and your kidney could save them, no one could make you give up your kidney if you didn’t want to, even though it likely wouldn’t kill you to do so. If someone did force you to give up your kidney to save this other person, would you be okay with not being allowed to make that choice? To be put at great personal risk? To have someone else’s live valued over yours? To sacrifice your right to choose what is done with your body parts? I wouldn’t be okay with being forced to give up a kidney, any more than I would be okay with being forced to continue a pregnancy. By prioritizing the ‘life’ of the fetus, you are deciding what is done with someone’s body parts. You are giving the fetus the right to the pregnant person’s body. Pregnancy is taxing, invasive, and can be risky, I do not believe that it should be forced on anyone. I believe that everyone should have access to safe and legal abortions.

  5. Deric Smith on May 28, 2019 at 11:09 AM

    “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is duty bound to address its scope.” Judge Clarence Thomas, 05/28/19. He does goes on to state that, “The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.” However, he has already correctly acknowledged that women DO have a Constitutional right to abortion under the Due Process Clause. A central purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, which is what they did with Roe vs. Wade. So, YES, abortion IS a protected right under the Constitution.

    • HLI Staff on June 26, 2019 at 9:12 AM

      Actually, correction. He is not stating that women have that “right.” He is referencing that under the law, since 1973, the Supreme Court created a right that did not exist in the Constitution. In doing so, the Court overturned state laws all across America and created law instead of interpreting law, as it is duty bound to do. A similar parallel would be the Dred Scott decision, when the Supreme Court dictated that slaves had no right to freedom nor citizenship in the United States (1857). That decision obviously no longer stands. We hope the same for Roe vs. Wade.

      • Jerry on November 12, 2020 at 12:46 PM

        That’s NOT a correction. That is additional information, but Deric is correct. Thomas recognized that abortion is currently a Constitutional right. Claiming otherwise is simply dishonest.

      • RBoone on March 25, 2021 at 2:46 PM

        Abortion is absolutely a constitutional right — as of the current state of things. But just because it is lawful does not make it moral, and it does not mean that the Court cannot eventually undue its previous rulings on abortion.

  6. Grace Haeckler on May 29, 2019 at 2:49 PM

    This is wonderful!! Once abortion is finally illegal can you please post your address so that we know where to send the adoption paperwork? These babies are so blessed that you would take it upon yourself to offer them the love and care they deserve.

  7. Josh Arnold on June 17, 2019 at 9:05 PM

    It is a sad sign of the Godlessness our society has embraced when people champion their belief that women have the “constitutional right” to murder their own baby while still in the womb.
    No matter how you spin it, parse it or twist the wording around… murder, is murder, is murder.
    The underlying problem has nothing to do with sinister minded people devilishly seeking ways to destroy human life. No, as with most things on this Earth the real problem is a desire to do what one wants and accept no responsibility for the consequences. By that I mean, have sex with whoever, whenever and however “we” want and not have to trouble “ourselves” with such inconveniances as pregnancy or children. Yes, the common belief that murder is “a constitutional right” is ultimately based on SELFISHNESS! Just like every other evil thing done on this Earth, selfishness is the root cause.
    The TRUTH is:
    -You don’t have the right to have sex with anyone/ anything you want.
    -Sex is a priveledge given by God to MARRIED COUPLES ONLY. Also, sex in the marriage must remain between the husband and wife only- no one else.
    -Any other sex will condemn your soul to an eternity in hell.

    Our society doesn’t want to hear this because it is inconveniant and an impediment to self satisfaction.
    To quote a friend of mine, “it does matter anyway because our country is swirling the toilet bowl as we speak. I just hope I’m not around when we finally flush.”

    • Shawn Marcum on November 3, 2020 at 12:23 AM

      Keep religion out of it. YOUR personal religious belief should have absolutely no bearing on someone else’s decisions! If any form of God exists, then those making any decision can answer for it when their time comes. I don’t believe you were appointed to handle that judgment

  8. Lampy on July 2, 2019 at 10:02 AM

    Hey @Coles C. Not sure if you will ever read this post but wanted to say that is a diplomatic way of educating people you have my respect.

  9. Bruce on December 1, 2019 at 9:12 PM

    During a life threatening crisis, humans that lack “Do Not Resuscitate” orders are expected to be kept alive by professional hospital staff. A determining factor is whether extraordinary life-sustaining technologies are necessary. Often times, even extraordinary technologies are implemented when knowledge of a DNR is not immediately evident. Intubation of a patient’s airway is a rather common ER procedure. Basic nutritional sustenance through a PEG feeding tube is not extraordinary, while a ventilator is.

    I seriously doubt that nutrition and oxygen provided by a God/nature created umbilical cord is considered extraordinary life support. Withholding basic life support is cruel and inhumane by Western civilized standards, notwithstanding the immorality of violently and proactively killing of an “innocent” new human life in utero. I have yet to observe a human fetus provide a Do Not Resuscitate request, so withholding basic life support is anathema to any other accepted medical care I am aware of.

    Lastly, the Roe v Wade decision that legislated from the bench is clearly unconstitutional.

  10. Chelsea on June 30, 2020 at 1:41 AM

    You know how I know you are uneducated? It’s the FOURTEENTH amendment that makes abortion legal. Not the fourth. Can’t get a simple thing right.

  11. Hayley P on September 26, 2020 at 12:35 AM

    Argument after argument refers back to G-d. Even the ones who call it murder refer to a fetus being made in God’s image. You, who also cry religious freedom at every opportunity when you don’t like something such as baking a cake for a gay couple, are trying to pose your will on every single human being in this country. Our laws are not based on your religious beliefs and you have no legal or constitutional right to force anyone to live by your morality and your belief in G-d. In my religion we don’t write G-d out of respect. So from now on should everyone be forced to do that? Before you decide to assume anything about me, I would never have had an abortion (In am in my 50s so too old now for that to be an issue). I am also the mother of an adopted child so I am grateful that the birth mom didn’t terminate her pregnancy. However, what is right for me is not right for everyone and it is wrong to impose my morality in anyone. And if you truly believe in G-d, then you should know, your actions are between you and G-d and no one else. Frankly this does fall under privacy and this article gives the exact reason why. Because ultimately this is a medical procedure and is constitutionally protected by the right to privacy between a doctor and patient.

  12. Ron Rutherford on October 11, 2020 at 9:55 PM

    Doesn’t anyone remember a time before abortion was legalized? if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will return to the dark days of back rooms, coat hangers, and chemicals. It will not stop abortion. Even if a law is passed to make abortion illegal, how will they prove it happened? Natural abortions happen all of the time. Women that want their babies still miscarriage. Are we then going to arrest them and make them prove that they didn’t do it on purpose? Come on people, think. Read your histories. Abortion should not be an election point.

  13. James on March 27, 2021 at 8:16 PM

    Downright sickening! So, you can kill the baby because the baby is called a fetus instead. Fetus basically means not dead but not alive yet according to the many statements given. Well, answer me this then, how is it that the scientific community spends billions of dollars every year looking for life on other planets and they define life as being at least a one cell organism. But, a child from the moment of conception has thousands of cells and somehow that’s not life? Just tell the truth instead of sidestepping. You just want to murder and that’s the truth.

Leave a Comment