Stop the Tyrants Part II

Good-Bye to Decency

§E   The End Result of Stenberg v. Carhart

Just what does the majority's Stenberg v. Carhart ruling add up to? The dissenting opinions of Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia give us straight and honest answers.

Justice Anthony Kennedy: 'You can't be serious!'

The five members of the Stenberg majority claim their ruling follows from a direct application of the Casey decision. (Which isn't really in their favor because Casey was unconstitutional to begin with!) But Justice Kennedy, who helped write the joint opinion that became the governing case law in Casey, says otherwise:

Casey is premised on the States having an important constitutional role in defining their interest in the abortion debate. ...The State's brief describes its interests as including concern for the life of the unborn, and "for the partially-born," in preserving the integrity of the medical profession, and in "erecting a barrier to infanticide." A review of Casey demonstrates the legitimacy of these policies. The Court should say so.
States also have an interest in forbidding medical procedures which, in the State's reasonable determination, might cause the medical profession or society as a whole to become insensitive, even disdainful, to life, including life in the human fetus. Abortion, Casey held, has consequences beyond the woman and her fetus. [Kennedy dissent; Page 6]

He makes it perfectly clear that the judiciary has no right to interfere with the people's desire to stop this dehumanizing "surgery":
[Partial-birth abortion's] stronger resemblance to infanticide means Nebraska could conclude the procedure presents a greater risk to the profession and society, which depend for their sustenance upon reciprocal recognition of dignity and respect. The Court is without authority to second-guess this conclusion. [Kennedy dissent: Page 8, emphasis added]

Justice Kennedy bluntly states that the majority's motives have nothing to do with the Constitution:
Ignoring substantial medical and ethical opinion, the Court substitutes its own judgment for the judgment of Nebraska and some 30 other States and sweeps the law away. ...The decision nullifies a law expressing the will of the people of Nebraska that medical procedures must be governed by moral principles having their foundation in the intrinsic value of human life, including life of the unborn. [Kennedy dissent: Pages 24 - 25]

Justice Clarence Thomas: 'Have you no pity?'

Justice Thomas clearly points out the shocking depth of the majority's pro-abortion activism:
[The majority's decision] is so obviously irreconcilable with Casey's explication of what its undue-burden standard requires, let alone the Constitution, that it should be seen for what it is, a reinstitution of the... abortion-on-demand era in which the mere invocation of "abortion rights" trumps any contrary societal interest. If the statute is unconstitutional under Casey, then Casey meant nothing at all, and the Court should candidly admit it.
In striking down this statute -- which expresses a profound and legitimate respect for fetal life and which leaves unimpeded several other safe forms of abortion -- the majority opinion gives the lie to the promise of Casey that regulations that do no more than "express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted." [Thomas dissent: Page 4]
We were reassured repeatedly in Casey that not all regulations of abortion are unwarranted and that the States may express profound respect for fetal life. Under Casey, the [Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortions] should easily pass constitutional muster. But the Court's abortion jurisprudence is a particularly virulent strain of constitutional exegesis. And so today we are told that 30 States are prohibited from banning [a] form of abortion that they believe to border on infanticide. It is clear that the Constitution does not compel this result. [Thomas dissent: Page 44, emphasis added]

Antonin Scalia: 'I'll tell it like it is'

In his short dissent, Justice Scalia hit the nail squarely on the head when he described the majority's decision:
The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, "to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd. [Scalia dissent: Page 1]

Justice Scalia tells us best just why Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer must go:
[The majority's opinion] is a value judgment, dependent upon how much one respects (or believes society ought to respect) the life of a partially delivered fetus, and how much one respects (or believes society ought to respect) the freedom of the woman who gave it life to kill it. Evidently the five Justices in today's majority value the former less, or the latter more, (or both), than the four of us in dissent. Case closed. [Scalia dissent: Page 3, emphasis added]

The truth of Justice Scalia's words should be self-evident to any person with half a brain. And that is all the evidence Congress should need to remove these cruel judges from office!

See the Chapter 4 Table of Contents.

The Stop the Tyrants Project [page 23]: Chapter 4 (Section E)
Page content and layout copyright © May 2001 by David A. Calvani