In recent snippet of interview, Gov. Palin suggested she disagreed with Roe because she was pro life, but also supported the constitutional right to privacy that underpins Roe (and Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird). This suggests a sort of basic confusion about Constitutional law, but never mind that. It also reminds me of something else I’ve been meaning to talk about.
Mainstream pro-life theory attacks the idea of Constitutional privacy as enshrined in these three decisions (and, later, Lawrence v Texas), and their main weapon is the doctine of Constitutional originalism, or the idea that the text of the Constitution must be interprested as normal persons of 1789 would have read it. Adherents to this theory insist that the idea of a penumbra of rights implied in the privacy decisions is invalid, since it’s not part of the original text. (This is tenuous, but stay with me.) (It’s also this theory that suggests to Scalia that torture is not “cruel and unusual punishment” because it’s not punishment; it’s interrogation — and that consequently torture isn’t unconstitutional.)
But here’s the thing: I’ve yet to meet anyone, ever, who holds to this point of view, but also believes abortion ought to be legal. On the contrary, it appears that this POV is adopted exclusively by persons who wish to see an end to safe and legal abortions in this country, and who view this as an issue of paramount importance. (N.B. that the absence of Constitutional privacy doesn’t mean abortion must be illegal; it just means that the government would be free to make laws forbidding it.) This strongly suggests to me a measure of intellectual dishonesty among the originalists — that they have simply picked a philosophical structure that supports their desired outcome. This is certainly convenient for them — and is made more so, and at least slightly respectable by such high-profile proponents as Scalia and his manservant on the Court — but doesn’t suggest overmuch analysis of related ethical or legal questions. Picking an endpoint and eliminating schools of thought until you find one that supports your conclusion is pretty bankrupt — it’s the philosophical equivalent of picking a scientific conclusion and discarding evidence that fails to support it.
So, dear Heathen Nation, find me a pro-choice originalist. I’ll be right here.
Me. I guess I’m one of those pro-choice originalists because I like the idea that because something is not strictly prescribed it is neither proscribed. I think there are plenty of people out there who, like me, don’t think that this is an issue to be decided by the Federal government. Or any government, for that matter. I think it should be just as legal to terminate a pregnancy as it is to cosmetically alter one’s appearance. I do not care to argue the sanctity of life nor do I care to argue when the life meter starts ticking. My argument is that electing to surgically alter one’s self to appear more youthful/thin/shapely/whatever can be mentally damaging to one’s family, not unlike the pain/guilt/stress/whatever an abortion would cause to one’s family. What does cosmetically altering one’s self to look like a Barbie doll say to an 8-year old daughter? What do pec implants say to an 8th grade boy? If we care so little about nature and God’s will that we dare improve on it, what does it matter if we spare the unborn the ravages of this shallow, degenerate socieity?
Neither abortion, nor cosmetic surgery is specifically allowed nor denied by the Constitution. Are there cases where both could be considered medically necessary? Sure, but I don’t care because I’m not going to have either, and neither is the US government. It isn’t necessary for it to get involved beyond the collection of taxes for services rendered.
I think you’re missing the question. Originalist doctrine says there is no Constitutional right to privacy. Is that your position?
If the originalist doctrine is purely a defense for a pro-life agenda, shouldn’t we be able to find examples where a pronounced originalist supported a decision that ran contrary to the originalist interpretation?
BTW – What are those originalists doing driving cars? Until I see Scalia’s horse and buggy clattering down the Mall I’m going to call bullshit on his philosophy — practice what you preach, homey!
I’m pro everything, unfortunately most of the country is not. I liked your last thought “…it’s the philosophical equivalent of picking a scientific conclusion and discarding evidence that fails to support it.” reminds me of the many disagreements we have on global warming, I mean climate change…
Oh, Edgar, I knew it wouldn’t take long for you trot out that idiot horse again. Just because YOU think something doesn’t mean the world’s scientific community is wrong. KTHNXBI.
Oh Chet, if you want to talk the talk walk the walk. You can’t be calling for scientific validity on one subject and ignoring it on another lest you yourself be trampled by the horse you call bankrupt. Keep arguing in generalisms like “the world’s scientific community” it’s cute. NEIGH!
You’re totally off the rails. Actual science is predicated on assembling data and drawing conclusions, which is what has led the overwhelming majority of scientists to the conclusions you find so objectionable about global warming.
I’ve posted link after link after link to coverage of peer-reviewed studies by actual scientists — climatologists, etc — over the last 8 years, and every time you come by with some bullshit contrarian claptrap about how there is no global warming, or if there is it’s not our fault, and all the global warming people are liars or corrupt or whatever. It’s fucking tiresome. You’re the one with the outsider opinion here; the burden is on you to trot out some actual science to explain things like rising seas, shrinking ice at the poles, and the temperature record as captured in ice core samples.
The sane conclusion that yes, the earth is warming and yes, we have something to do with it is endorsed by more than 30 formal scientific societies (i.e., peer reviewed bodies) including every national academy of science in the developed world. Pretty much the only one “holding back” is The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and even they have modified their position as of 2007 to be more in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus.
So, yes, one of us is perhaps taking a conclusion and cherrypicking evidence to support their maverick opinion. But it’s not me.