Pavone’s Father: Alito’s leaky look at Roe reflects earlier beliefs

The Department of Homeland Security is concerned about a possible escalation in violence as the Supreme Court decision is pending reversal. Rowe vs. Wade officially announced. The Ministry of Justice provides protection to judges whose homes are the scene of protests and who are openly threatened on social media.

The potential abolition of universal legal abortion at the federal level has caused violent uproar over half the country, but I’m sure very few Summer of Anger abortion advocates know about it. Rowe vs. Wade It has long been considered a terrible decision and invented rights that have no basis in the Constitution.

If the verdict, penned by Judge Samuel Alito, is made public as expected, it will correct an error that has persisted for nearly 50 years, claimed the lives of more than 63 million unborn children and harmed countless millions. their mothers. , fathers. , grandparents, siblings.

Judge Alito’s view was clear, but our pro-abortion brothers were probably unaware that it was resting on the shoulders of former Supreme Court justices who acknowledged the recklessness of it. Caviaraccompanying solution, Dow vs Boltonin 1992 Casey opposes family planning who invented the vague “unnecessary burden” standard.

The two people opposed in all three cases were Judge William Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) and Judge Byron White. They participated in the validation Casey The late Judge Antonin Scalia and Judge Clarence Thomas.

Although at least one biographer wrote that White was personally in favor of the election, AtlanticHe firmly believes in refusing to invent constitutional rights that are not enshrined in the US Constitution.

Judge White wrote that he disapproved:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court’s decision. The Court formulates and merely proclaims a new constitutional right for expectant mothers and provides that right with sufficient substance to repeal most of the state’s existing abortion laws, with no actual basis or power to act.

He continued:

As an exercise of merciless jurisdiction, the Court may have the right to do what it now does; however, in my opinion, his decision is an imprudent and excessive application of the right to judicial review granted by the Constitution to this court.

To decide Caviar, seven judges said, among other things, that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants a woman the right to privacy, including the decision to have an abortion. But as Alito points out in his leaked comment dobbs The truth is, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, 28 out of 37 states made abortion during pregnancy a crime. In 1910, the remaining nine states criminalized abortion.

in dispute with CaviarJudge Rehnquist noticed the same difference:

To reach this conclusion, the Court had to look for legislation within the Fourteenth Amendment, which was completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment…which limits abortion.

How could a state pass a law outlawing abortion and at the same time make an amendment that allegedly protects abortion? This is illogical. Those adopting the change could not imagine how it would be abused in the future.

Much of what Alito wrote in the draft opinion—including contemporary Judge Thomas—was what his predecessors understood in 1973 and were able to explain again in 1992. Casey decision. It’s time for the American people to understand what is and isn’t in our Constitution.

And as angry abortionists continue to roam the streets of America, let us take to the streets in prayer meetings, mourning the ten to ten million victims, as peaceful and compassionate defenders of the life we ​​have always lived. and thankfully our country has made a great turn towards a living culture.

Father Frank Pavone is National Director of the Priests of Life and National Pastoral Director of the Rachel’s Vineyard Ministry and the Quiet No More Awareness Campaign.