WSJ mischaracterized Alito's expressed views on abortion rights
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article on the constitutionality of South Dakota's recently passed abortion ban stated that Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito "expressed skepticism about abortion rights while working for the Reagan administration." However, the suggestion that Alito merely "expressed skepticism" about abortion rights mischaracterizes his clearly articulated view that there is no constitutional right to abortion.
Reporting in the March 9 edition of the Wall Street Journal on the constitutionality of South Dakota's recently passed ban on most abortions in the state, staff reporter Deborah Solomon wrote that Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "expressed skepticism about abortion rights while working for the Reagan administration." However, the suggestion that Alito merely "expressed skepticism" about abortion rights mischaracterizes his view -- which he articulated clearly in a 1985 application for the position of assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department -- that there is no constitutional right to abortion: Alito wrote of his "personal satisfaction" in helping "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," adding that he was "particularly proud of his contributions in cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court ... that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
As Media Matters for America noted in the days leading up to Alito's confirmation hearing, some conservative commentators sought to downplay Alito's statements in opposition to a constitutional right to abortion by invoking the criticism by several prominent liberal jurists and constitutional scholars that the landmark 1973 abortion rights case Roe v. Wade was decided on the wrong constitutional basis. But the comparison was flawed: While the legal scholars they cited -- including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was then an judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Edward Lazarus -- criticized the court's reasoning in Roe, their writings and statements made clear that they agreed with the holding in the case establishing a constitutional right to abortion. By contrast, as evident by his 1985 statement, Alito did not agree that the Constitution provides a right to abortion.
Additionally, some media figures defended Alito's Reagan-era job application by claiming that Alito was not expressing his personal views when he wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In fact, Alito made clear in the application that he "strongly" and "personally" believed in the legal arguments in question:
Most recently, it has been an honor and a source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.
From Solomon's article in the March 9 edition of The Wall Street Journal:
The South Dakota debate, in which advocates emphasized their desire to lead the anti-Roe charge, has sparked other states to follow. At least three states introduced legislation after South Dakota's ban; one was Mississippi, where lawmakers amended legislation that began not as a ban but rather as an attempt to require ultrasound screening before an abortion could take place.
"There's definitely a sense of 'me-too,' " says Jackie Payne of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which plans a lawsuit to block implementation of the South Dakota ban.
Whether their effort will succeed remains unclear. A majority of the Supreme Court's justices are still expected to uphold Roe v. Wade.
The efforts to ban abortion have also galvanized state lobbying campaigns by activists who support abortion rights. In South Dakota, the local chapter of Planned Parenthood ran a newspaper advertisement against the abortion ban.
But antiabortion forces say their legal hand now is stronger. They are encouraged by the Supreme Court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who both expressed skepticism about abortion rights while working for the Reagan administration.
For many years the right has wished for Roe V. Wade to be overturned. Most people believe since it is the law of the land that it could not be overturned. As we recently seen could has turned into may. Now that they have gotten the justices they wanted the right will push to have their day in court. But what will happen if they actually do overturn Roe V. Wade. I think this would be decided state by state and that would cause a backlash at the national level. I think the balance would then swing back to the left as people who were voting republican would vote the other way because choice was no longer safe. While I hope it never gets to that point, if the right may be getting more than they bargained for.
What if 'the issue' is no longer an issue. This abortion thing is such a huge polarizing firebrand for the GOP, not sure they'd be that happy if it went away.
Be careful what you wish for..........the abortion issue, as personal and important it is too many on both sides, is most definitely used and manipulated for political gain from the right and the left. I would venture to guess that many have no real interest in seeing it settled either way, it's a wedge issue to drum up campaign dollars and support from the loyal base.
Off topic, but that has always been my biggest beef with the Sharpton's and the Jesse Jackson's of the world - they call for an end to racism but if that were to happen where would they be with the issue - irrelevant and insignificant.
The issue is settled. We won. Roe v. Wade is "the law of the land" or "settled law". It's the cons that want to reverse that. So, it's not 50/50. Of course pretending everything is 50/50 is your MO. However, reality doesn't work that way.
If for no other reason than to wipe away that smug little way you have of posting, I would vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
But then again, you are not worth the effort.
Come on Tommy... people were just lauding you as a reasonable guy. I understand you were provoked.
I do believe that the GOP 'uses' this issue (as well as many other esoteric points of 'belief') as fear-provoking nudges for their constituents... Without it, well, what will this current GOP run on? Most, if not all, of the other purported 'conservative ideals' the GOP is supposed to uphold have been desecrated by this current administration. Again, I'm not sure the GOP wants this issue settled in favor of the Pro-lifers.
...and I read your post again...and I think we're in agreement (as you titled your post).
And, I've often felt the same thing about Jackson (sadly).
Rather Trolly of you.
And you going to repeat your argument that anti-choicers aren't anti-choicers because there's still make choices in other areas?
You're right -- off-topic and totally Troll. Thanks for trying to derail the thread once again. Will you conservatives never quit with your dirty tricks?
I understand what your saying, and respect your opinion, but a lot of the groups on the right who are fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade would not stop there if it were overturned. A lot of these people also feel very strongly about birth control and other reproductive issues. There are even groups opposed to the new vaccine to prevent Cervical Cancer. Their thinking is that if we allow it to be given to young girls before they become sexually active, that it will encourage them to have sex. They would rather put their daughters lives in jeopardy, than to try to protect them before they're faced with the decision to have or not have sexual relations. Any parent knows that they can't predict their child's behavior. They can only try to raise them the best way they can and hope for the best. The only thing that a parent can control is to either protect their daughters with the vaccine, or to hope that they do not become sexually active.
As a generalization I agree that the conservative base supports the repeal of Roe v Wade. Specifically I don't believe that a consensus of the conservative base wants to return to pre-Roe law.
A better defined law...that protects the mother's life and includes rape and incest clauses...could be approved by the current SC. Additionally, this SC will likely rule against partial-birth abortion. Eliminating the positions of the extreme left and right...these rulings would sit well with the majority of Americans.
Pre-Roe, abortions were illegal and post-Roe,virtually any abortion is approved. Abortion is not a legitimate birth control option. Legal birth control options are readily available.
As a generalization, Roe is only supported by the extreme left. A more reasonable abortion law which includes limitations would be more palatable to the American public...protecting the mother's rights while addressing the rights of the unborn.
The current SC probably won't overturn Roe...but if Stevens retires...all bets are off.
"As a generalization, Roe is only supported by the extreme left. "
And a wrong generalization at that.
Try the unholy trinity of Capitalism, Religion and Conservativism. WSJ is the capitalism leg.