Why Roe v. Wade should be overturned

[Schmitz in 1972]

My philosophy on Roe V. Wade

Blackmun's opinion is horrendous. First he guides us on a whirlwind tour of his 'abortion throughout history' museum. Then he says "The Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy." From then on his premise is that this unmentioned right exists and therefore the states have been maliciously denying women to abort for over a century. In contrast, Rehnquist's opinion is more legally sound and coherent. In 1868 at the time of the 14th amendment's approval (containing the due process clause) a great majority of the states had anti-abortion laws. If we are to follow the original intent, Rehnquist argues, fetuses must continue to be recognized as persons as they were in 1868. Further proof of his theory comes ironically from Blackmun's own opinion. He devotes several paragraphs to the American Medical Associations positon on the issue of abortion around the time of the 14th amendment. Read it and you'll see that the prevailing attitude at the time was that a fetus constituted a person.

For those of you who reject this on the basis of original intent not being a sound legal theory let me say this: If the original Constitution said "gay people have the right to marry" would a judge be justified to allow homosexual marriage based solely on that passage? Of course not! It would flagrantly contradict what the document meant at its writing! While the change in definition of the word 'gay' is an obvious example, there are dozens of other changes in definition which have been decidedly more subtle, allowing for their massive exploitation by liberal justices over the past few decades. You may call me closed-minded but it seems that original intent is the ONLY valid judicial philosophy because any other would render a Code of Laws absolutely meaningless!

[Schmitz in 1972]

All right, I'll agree that when the plain text of the Constitution answers a question that puts an end to the matter, but when the plain text is not perfectly clear (as it is in many occasions or else we wouldn't need a Supreme Court!) the question should be decided based on the best we can gather of the original intent.