The first installment of this series began by examining the political trajectory of the Republican primary contest. What Donald Trump accomplished by defeating his rivals is worth taking seriously when considering his candidacy for the President of the United States. Now that he is fighting an uphill battle against the Clinton political machine, it would behoove Catholics to take a closer look at the documented policy verities between the two candidates. The first policy that I am going to examine concerns the topic of abortion.
In the 1990’s Congress passed legislation banning partial birth abortion. President Bill Clinton vetoed the law. Soon after, the state of Nebraska passed a similar law banning this procedure. The legitimacy of the legislation was challenged. Eventually, in Stengar v. Carhart, the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional with a 5-4 vote. The majority opinion discerned a constitutionally protected right to not only procure an abortion, but also discovered the constitutionality of a specific way in which to have an abortion. Justice Scalia’s dissent was scathing, comparing the decision with the infamous Korematsu and Dred Scott cases.
To remind the reader, the partial birth abortion procedure is as brutal as it is unnecessary. The baby is turned feet first so that the body can be fully extracted from the mother’s womb while the head remains inside the birth canal. A scissors or forceps is then plunged into the back of the baby’s neck and head. The tool used to create the wound is then opened, creating a gaping hole in order to more easily suction the baby’s brain from their skull. After being impaled, the head of the baby is crushed so that the doctor may readily extract the lifeless body from the mother’s birth canal. Remember, the baby is not dead when this procedure occurs. This is how the baby, who is fully pain capable at this point in the pregnancy, is killed. It is difficult to imagine a more barbaric “medical” procedure. It requires an especially demonic mindset to call something like this “reproductive healthcare,” and yet Bill Clinton thought a ban on such a practice was going too far. Moreover, the Supreme Court was some how able to discern within the text and logical structure of the Constitution a protected right for babies to be medically executed.
Nevertheless, the battle to defeat this heinous practice was far from over. In 2003 Congress passed new legislation banning this procedure. The law was, once again, challenged in federal court. This time, however, the ban was found to be constitutional with a 5-4 vote. What was the difference? Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted to strike down the Nebraska law had retired, and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito.
To be sure, the worldview of the Philosopher Kings seated on the highest court in the country most definitely matters. It is quite literally a life and death issue.
Consider the worldview of those who oppose banning this practice. Hillary Clinton is an abortion radical. She has explicitly stated that the preborn baby has absolutely no rights. During an episode of The View, Mrs. Clinton expressly stated that a baby, moments away from birth, could be aborted if the mother made such a decision. When this very topic was being addressed in the final presidential debate, she attempted to poise herself within the morally reasonable position of only wanting to protect the health of the mother. But we all know that this approach is a smokescreen to hide her fundamentally scandalous intentions. Mrs. Clinton would work to eradicate every minuscule protection currently in place specifying that preborn children have a right to not have their lives ended on a whim. The most innocent and vulnerable in our society are unreservedly and comprehensively dehumanized by the vocabulary of the progressive ideological death cult.
This kind of fanaticism against innocent human life is not limited to Hillary Clinton. Debbie Wasserman – Schultz, the former DNC chair and recently promoted by Hillary after rigging the primary in her favor, holds to the identical view of her mentor.
Let’s not forget about the controversy Senator Rand Paul sparked when he asked this reasonably question,
Wasserman – Schultz mechanically responded,
“Here’s an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women –– but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.” – DNC Chair Responds
Just so we are clear, this is a “yes” to Senator Paul’s question. The Democratic Party has no problem with killing a 7 lb. baby in the uterus.
The mindless parroting of pro-abortion talking points becomes even clearer when Wasserman-Schultz is asked a direct question regarding the humanity of her own, once preborn children. This interaction is quite revealing,
MRC TV: You have three children, correct?
Wasserman Schultz: I do.
MRC TV: How old are they?
Wasserman Schultz: I have twin 16-year-olds and a 12-year-old.
MRC TV: In your opinion, were they human beings before they were born?
Wasserman Schultz: You know, I believe that every woman has the right to make their own reproductive choices.
MRC TV: But what did you believe about your children?
Wasserman Schultz: That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad to have and which I was proud to have.
MRC TV: So were they human beings? Just yes or no.
Wasserman Schultz: They’re human beings today, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to make my own reproductive choices, as – a right that every woman has and should maintain.
The ubiquitous moral nonsensicality is truly astonishing. Progressives have no problem with a doctor and a patient concluding to kill a baby that is almost fully developed and soon to be born; in their view, this is an utterly non-controversial decision. The evidence for this is in the flippancy of Wasserman – Schultz’s stated, “Period. End of story.” And yet, according to the same progressives, wages being negotiated between business owners/managers and the employees of a company cannot be decided without the expressed interjection of the state and federal government. If the government has no business in protecting the most defenseless against being killed in the womb, what business does the government have interjecting in the economic decisions between two adults. The progressive would most likely argue that the potential employee is in a position of weakness and needs protection from those capitalist monsters looking to exploit all laborers who happen to pass through their doors seeking a job, and yet, the baby in the womb is not worthy of legal protection.
Now that we are clear on the nature of the extremism we are currently facing from the Democratic Party, let’s get back to discussing the importance of the Supreme Court on these moral issues.
Some of the most morally charged Supreme Court decisions were the result of a 5-4 vote. The most recent being the Obergefell decision, which codified the redefinition of marriage. If Donald Trump does what he says he is going to do, and appoints Scalia-esque justices to the bench, we could see Roe overturned.
Justice Scalia was at his best when attacking the idea that hiding under a mythic penumbra of rights, and undetected for over a century in American jurisprudence, exists a constitutionally protected right to kill an unborn child.
Here are some of Justice Scalia’s most stinging passages,
– Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) –
- “Assuming the question before us is to be resolved at such a level of philosophical abstraction, in such isolation from the traditions of American society, as by simply applying ‘reasoned judgment,’ I do not see how that could possibly have produced the answer the Court arrived at in Roe v. Wade. Today’s opinion describes the methodology of Roe, quite accurately, as weighing against the woman’s interest the State’s ‘important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.’ (quoting Roe). But ‘reasoned judgment’ does not begin by begging the question, as Roe and subsequent cases unquestionably did by assuming that what the State is protecting is the mere ‘potentiality of human life.’ The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is human life.”
- “The issue is whether it [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the ‘concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected – because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.”
- “It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution rather than inventing one, when we amend its provisions so breezily.”
- “Reason finds no refuge in the jurisprudence of confusion.”
- “The Court’s description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, but elevating it to the national level, where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress, before Roe v. Wade was decided.”
- “Roe’s mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that attached to the act…Many favor all of those developments, and it is not for me to say that they are wrong. But to portray Roe as the statesmanlike ‘settlement’ of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing less than Orwellian.”
- “Instead of engaging in the hopeless task of predicting public perception – a job not for lawyers but for political campaign managers – the Justices should do what is legally right by asking two questions: (1) Was Roe correctly decided? (2) Has Roe succeeded in producing a settled body of law? If the answer to both questions is no, Roe should undoubtedly be overruled.”
– Stenberg v. Carhart –
- “I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of the Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child – one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child – proscribed by this statue is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.”
- “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…”
- “If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people – where the Constitution, but its silence on the subject, left it – and to let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.”
Is there any doubt that if Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, and appoints judges in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, that a culture of life has a fighting chance to define American society for decades to come? For any Catholic to not take this consideration seriously is making an extremely grave mistake. Your delicate sensibilities do not come before your duty to protect life in the womb.
Consider the alternative. If Hillary Clinton wins we know exactly what she will do. Her appointments will be left wing progressive ideologues committed to interpreting the constitution as a “living” document, which will inexorably result in the advancement of unrestricted access to abortion, the eradication of religious liberty, and effectively stripping the constitution of the 2nd Amendment.
On the issue of protecting the life of the preborn, it is not even a contest for the Catholic voter. Donald Trump’s position is vastly superior to that of Hillary Clinton’s.
– Lucas G. Westman
 The history provided in this paragraph is taken from Scalia’s Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.
 The history provided in this paragraph is taken from Scalia’s Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.
 All quotes are taken from Scalia’s Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents.