[Apologetics] Fwd: Justice Rehnquist's Dissent (Fr. Frank Pavone's Bi-weekly Column)

[Dianne Dawson]

Priests for Life <Priests_for_Life at xmr3.com> wrote:Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:04:36 -0400
To: rcdianne at yahoo.com
From: Priests for Life <Priests_for_Life at xmr3.com>
Subject: Justice Rehnquist's Dissent (Fr. Frank Pavone's Bi-weekly Column)

June 16, 2005

Dear Friends,

My column below deals with the Chief Justice, who many anticipate will retire this month. The battle over 
the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice will surpass, in its intensity, any of the political or 
legislative battles in recent memory. We need to be ready. Though we cannot vote for a Supreme Court 
Justice, we can certainly lobby our Senators and we can also educate our Churches, groups, families, 
and friends about the significance of this moment. 

Pro-abortion groups are readying themselves, because they want to keep control of the Court. They are 
preparing announcements and messages of all kinds to convince people that we need pro-abortion 
judges. Will you be just as ready to spread messages like the column below? I believe you will, and I 
thank you for it.

Sincerely,
Fr. Frank Pavone


Justice Rehnquist's Dissent
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life 

The 1973 Supreme Court abortion decision Roe vs. Wade was decided by a 7-2 margin, 
legalizing abortion throughout pregnancy. One of the two dissenters from that decision was the 
current Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, who has served on the Supreme Court since 1971, and 
as Chief Justice since 1986.

His dissent from Roe is less than 1500 words, and points out several of the many errors and 
weaknesses of what is, beyond doubt, the most damaging decision the Court has ever issued. 
Justice Rehnquist objected both to the conclusions of the majority and to the methods they used 
to reach those conclusions. 

The so-called "right to abortion" is not, he objected, what the majority makes it out to be. The 
Court must be wrong to find any basis for this right in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, 
for the simple reason, as he explains, that at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial 
legislatures were in force at the time that the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Moreover, 
some 21 of these laws were still in effect when Roe vs. Wade was decided. How, then, could they 
be at odds with the 14th Amendment? In the words of Justice Rehnquist, "To reach its result, the 
Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was 
apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

The willingness of States to protect the unborn for a century before Roe, and the intensity of the 
abortion debate itself, were clear signs to Justice Rehnquist in 1973 that the existence of an 
abortion right was not so clear cut as the appellant, and certainly as many advocacy groups, were 
suggesting.

In his dissent, Justice Rehnquist mentions several times that the Court is engaging in the kind of 
analysis and judgment that should be left to legislatures. To be able to discern the difference is a 
critical skill for anyone on our Federal courts to have. If the people are to have self-governance, 
then the legislative process should be allowed to function through the legislatures, and not be 
short-circuited by Court decisions that create policy without the input of the people and their 
elected representatives. The fact that Justice Rehnquist was not afraid to criticize the Roe court 
on this point is yet another reason why his dissent is a valuable teaching tool in many contexts.

Justice Rehnquist’s dissent raises a question about current confirmation hearings for Federal 
judges and eventually for Supreme Court Justices. Nominees who oppose Roe vs. Wade are 
routinely criticized bitterly for that position. But if the Chief Justice of the United States 
Supreme Court for the past 19 years has been a dissenter from Roe, why can't a new federal 
judge also be? It is a respectable position, not only for moral and religious reasons, but for legal 
and Constitutional ones as well. Thank you, Justice Rehnquist, for taking and maintaining that 
position.

Long live the dissenters!

The full text of the Roe vs. Wade decision, including Justice Rehnquist’s dissent, can be found at 
www.priestsforlife.org/government/supremecourt/7301roevwade.htm

This column can be found online at:
www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2005/05-06-20justicerehnquistdissent.htm

Remember to support our work at www.priestsforlife.org/donate

Comments on this column? Email us at mail at priestsforlife.org, Priests for Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 
10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515; web: www.priestsforlife.org


K-3-903749-1029210-2-34341-US1-0111FDA8






Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.

Ps 42:1
 
 



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20050617/dd31c208/attachment.html>