Inhuman Nature


Published on November 18, 2021

National Review - November 29, 2021 issue

Read other pieces by EPPC scholars published in National Review’s “Against Roe” issue:

Erika Bachiochi | Patrick T. Brown | Alexandra DeSanctis


Roe v. Wade,  Planned Parent­hood v. Casey, and the other precedents that compose the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence of abortion should be overturned and consigned to the ash heap of history because they have for decades imposed on the nation, without constitutional warrant, an extreme, incoherent, and deeply unjust regime pursuant to specious reasoning and constantly changing rules, standards, and rationales. Fidelity to the Constitution, the judicial role, and the goods served by the prudential doctrine of stare decisis — stability, transparency, sustainability, and the perceived integrity of the judicial process — are sufficient reasons for the Court in the upcoming case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to reverse Roe and Casey and allow the political branches of government to enact laws and policies that care rightly for vulnerable mothers, children (born and unborn), and families.

But there is another reason to dismantle the lawless artifice of American abortion jurisprudence: namely, that it is built on a conception of human identity and flourishing that is false, dangerous, and in no way required by the Constitution. Put another way, Roe v. WadePlanned Parenthood v. Casey, and their progeny graft onto our constitution a distorted understanding of what it means to be human. These precedents dissolve the parental relationship, atomize and isolate mother and child, and recast them as strangers locked in a zero-sum vital conflict. The Court’s misframing of the human context thus led it to invent a right to use private violence suitable for repelling an intruder. In so ruling, the Court cut off mother and child from possible public and private sources of genuine aid and protection.

Consider Justice Blackmun’s discussion of the source of the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, such as it is. He began by invoking an unwritten “right to privacy” previously discussed in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut (regarding the freedom of married couples to use contraception), which Blackmun argued was a substantive right implied by the procedural guarantee of the 14th Amendment that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This right to privacy, he argued, extended to the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. (Never mind that the 14th Amendment’s due-process clause was ratified in 1868, when abortion was a codified crime in 30 of 37 states and had been a common-law crime since the American founding.)

Click here to read the rest of this piece at National Review‘s website.

EPPC Fellow O. Carter Snead is a professor of law and the director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics.


Most Read

EPPC BRIEFLY
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Sign up to receive EPPC's biweekly e-newsletter of selected publications, news, and events.

Upcoming Event |

The Problem of Atheism: Del Noce, Marx, and the Roots of Western Irreligion

SEARCH

Your support impacts the debate on critical issues of public policy.

Donate today

More in Bioethics and American Democracy

Related Publications

Overturning Roe Would Be the Easy Part for the Pro-Life Movement

Henry Olsen

Overturning Roe will not suddenly make abortion illegal throughout the country. Instead, it will simply return the abortion question to the political process. That means public opinion, which Roe has peremptorily suppressed for almost 50 years, will rule the roost. And it is decidedly mixed.

Articles

The Washington Post / December 1, 2021

Pro-Abortion Attorney Fudges Facts on International Abortion

Alexandra DeSanctis

Nearly every European country that allows abortion at all limits it to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and a handful allow it until 15 weeks. They do not, as one of the attorneys arguing against Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks suggested, allow abortion after that point for “broad social reasons.”

Articles

National Review Online / December 1, 2021

Women Do Not ‘Rely’ on Abortion

Erika Bachiochi

Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey hang by the thin thread of “reliance.” Chip away at Casey’s assertion that women rely on abortion for their participation in economic and social life, and there is not much left of the cases that have distorted constitutional interpretation and held U.S. politics hostage for nearly 50 years.

Articles

Thoughts on a Post-Roe Agenda

Patrick T. Brown

The pressure campaigns on religious freedom and voting bills would look like child’s play if a state moved to enact restrictions potentially enabled by Dobbs. Social conservatives need to prepare a counteroffensive.

Articles