A follow-up to John Miller’s post: A separate article on the front page of today’s Washington Post asserts that President Bush has “appointed two antiabortion Supreme Court justices”. Oh, really? Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito believe that the Constitution entrenches a right to life of the unborn and prohibits the enforcement of permissive abortion laws? Somehow I missed that.
What we can hope (though the evidence is not in yet)—and what we are entitled to expect from all Supreme Court justices—is that Roberts and Alito, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, will recognize that the Constitution is substantively neutral on the matter of abortion and that it therefore leaves abortion policy to the people to establish and revise through their representatives.
As I explain more fully in this essay, a reading of the Constitution that permits either protective or permissive abortion laws is not fairly described as “antiabortion”. Somehow that elementary point routinely escapes our media elites.