The Dobbs’ Case and the Culture of Life

The outcry from pro-choice entities following the recent leak of the Supreme Court’s majority vote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has been considerable. The decision, which would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, leaves a wake that ranges from rhetorical arguments on social media to harassment at judges’ homes and disruptions of church services on Mother’s Day. The protests are evidence of the utter confusion resulting from a half-century of the mentality which Pope John Paul II called the culture of death.

Social media posts about the decision elicit sympathy by describing various scenarios of crisis pregnancies. They begin with cases of genuine heartbreak, such as that of an unviable fetus or a young victim of rape. The argument extends then to situations such as a family in poverty who cannot afford another mouth to feed, and finally, to a young professional whose birth control method failed. The punchline says something like, “You don’t get to choose when it’s okay and when it’s not,” thus condoning abortion for any reason.

In addition to social and ethical reasonings, some offer political and historical arguments in favor of abortion. Citing the Catholic Church’s faithful witness to the Gospel of Life, abortion advocates accuse pro-life politicians of violating the nation’s separation of church and state. Some point to tragic outcomes of illegal abortions in the 20th century as reasons to keep abortion legal, and therefore, we are to assume, safe.

The Supreme Court’s Task

From a legal perspective, these arguments miss the point regarding the Supreme Court’s task. In considering the validity of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court is not tasked with deciding whether social justice demands that abortion be legal. It is not the Court’s job to create laws or make policy, nor even to decide what is best for society. Rather, the Supreme Court is to apply the policies created by the elected officials, the President, and Congress, and to ensure that they do not conflict with the United States Constitution (Scalia 80).

In short, the Court’s task in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is to determine whether the Constitution ensures the right to abortion. The justices’ reading comprehension and legal expertise should factor into that determination more than their religion or personal opinions.

Antonin Scalia on the Constitution

The late Justice Antonin Scalia held that the Constitution does not confer the right to abortion. Although a devout Catholic, Scalia made it clear that it was not his religious conviction that led him to this conclusion. In fact, he reported feeling embarrassed when Catholics would thank him for his position in support of Roe v. Wade. “I deserve no thanks,” he writes.

That position is not a virtuous affirmation of my religious belief, but simply the product of lawyerly analysis of constitutional text and tradition. … My religious faith can give me a personal view on the right or wrong of abortion, but it cannot make a text say yes where it in fact says no (81).

In a 1992 speech for the Long Island Catholic, Scalia elaborated on a trend among Supreme Court justices that is relevant today. He referred to “imaginative judges” who would derive implausible meanings from the Constitution to suit their opinions or political preferences. Eventually, some Americans began to view the Constitution not as a fixed text, but as “an all-purpose, shorthand embodiment of whatever they care deeply about” (82). Consequently, Supreme Court nominees have sometimes been interrogated on their opinions and sympathies rather than their understanding of the Constitution. People assume justices can rule based on contemporary causes, rather than on the text they are sworn to uphold.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who served on the Court with Scalia for twenty-five years, echoes Scalia’s understanding of the Constitution as a fixed text. He recently asserted that the Supreme Court is not an institution to be “bullied into giving you the outcomes you want” (Perkins).

Using the Constitution as support for partisan preferences destroys its intended character. The United States Constitution was ingeniously created to be an obstacle to majority self-will. Requiring the majority to abide by set principles in this document minimizes the human tendency to abuse power. Making those set principles fluid, working as though the Constitution means whatever the majority wants it to mean, destroys its essential character and makes it a vehicle for control in a way that undermines the democratic process (Scalia 83-84). For once the Court sets a precedent, states lose their power to legislate against that precedent.

Current Unrest Vs. Culture of Life

Scalia’s commentary on the Supreme Court’s changing understanding of the Constitution foreshadows the current unrest over five or six justices who see the flaw in the 1973 Court’s decision. It is difficult for pro-choice groups to accept that the Constitution does not support the cause about which they feel so passionate. They have become accustomed to a Constitution which, like a lax conscience, tells them whatever they wish to hear.

As a result, the family of Justice Kavanaugh is harassed in their home. Justice Alito has moved to a separate location for his safety. Churchgoers in California and New York encountered angry pro-choice protesters last weekend, and a family help center, Wisconsin Family Action, was set ablaze and vandalized with a message, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either” (Perkins). Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, even as she maintains her support for abortion, requests that people be prayerful (Perkins), and politicians are scrambling for ways to ensure abortion on demand throughout the nation.

Shining Examples of Virtue

The justices who dare to admit that they do not find support for “abortion rights” in the Constitution are shining examples of virtue. American Catholics need to follow their lead and proclaim the Gospel of Life. We need to affirm the truths that life begins at conception, and that each new life comprises not only a body but also an immortal soul. A culture of life necessitates substantial support for women in crisis pregnancies, as well as healing ministries for women and men suffering the wounds following abortion. Only the Gospel of Life will clear up the confusion of those who, though misguided compassion, fight for the right to kill the unborn. To every appeal for social justice, in every scenario of crisis and hardship, the answer that provides peace and justice is life. To insist otherwise, and to imagine that the U.S. Constitution says otherwise, is a confusing argument of the culture of death.

The fight for the culture of life does not end with the Dobbs case. This decision will only send the responsibility for abortion legislation to the states. Now we hear troublesome reports of legislators introducing bills that allow the option for abortion to extend several days after birth. Even newborns, then, are not safe. Are the frail elderly safe? The infirm? The severely depressed individual? Where does the confusion end?

Separation of Church and State

Notwithstanding the critical need for the Gospel of Life, a Supreme Court justice would be misguided if he used his position on the Court to promote his religion. Justice Scalia maintained that his Catholicism was not the reason for his opposition to Roe v. Wade. However, Scalia also held that one’s belief in transcendental realities shapes one’s worldview (Scalia 57). In other words, faith cannot be separated from one’s character. The separation of church and state does not mean that one’s religious beliefs may not influence one’s political views (101). In fact, Scalia argued that it is impossible for a truly religious person to divide his policies into those which are theologically motivated and those simply of personal preferences (77-78).

Scalia believed that being a faithful Catholic meant being, as Christ said, “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). The justice declared that he always had interpreted this command to apply to “the practice of one’s lifework” (Scalia 76). In interpreting the Constitution, then, Scalia felt it imperative that he do so as perfectly and honestly as possible.

The politician who fights for Christian principles does not violate the separation of church and state. Rather, he or she lives the Gospel of Life. A Supreme Court justice who honestly and objectively interprets the Constitution likewise is advancing the culture of life. Let us pray for all of the Supreme Court justices to have the grace of discernment and honesty. Let us pray for Americans to embrace the culture of life.

Works Cited

Perkins, Tony. “Unrest Assured in Left’s Hysteria Over Roe.” Family Research Council, 9 May

Scalia, Antonin. On Faith: Lessons from an American Believer. Edited by Christopher J. Scalia and Edward Whelan. Crown Forum, 2019.