NRL News

“Morning Joe,” wrong as usual, this time claiming that abortion is a “specifically enumerated constitutional right”

by | Sep 14, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Covid 19 in general, vaccine mandates in particular, are not our issues. What is our issue, however, is when someone—that someone being MSNBC’s blustery Joe Scarborough—shifts from one rant about mandates to announce, out of the blue, that abortion is a “specifically enumerated constitutional right.”

I get it that television personalities rift all the time without necessarily giving their remarks a lot of (or any) thought. Scarborough is a classic example.

But “specifically enumerated”? Really, Joe? Where is abortion “enumerated” in the Constitution, specifically or otherwise? It isn’t, of course, as even strong supporters of the “right” to abortion have conceded for 48+ years.

In 1972-73, with the predetermined results foremost in his brain, Justice Harry Blackmun sewed together “penumbras” and “emanations,” patched in a newly discovered “privacy” right and, presto, stitched together a woman’s right to abortion.

A pro-abortionist might suggest it is sort of like when someone is learning to crochet. Underneath, the threads may look like a mess but when you turn the garment over, the finished product on top can be thing of beauty. 

Only, in this case, the threads are all the wrong colors, all the wrong lengths, and the finished product—Roe v. Wade—is a jurisprudential catastrophe.

Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, traces the lineage of a privacy right in various court cases and correctly concludes 

This makes abortion a right that is very much not “enumerated.” It is, in fact, highly synthesized and only called into existence through legal and logical leaps. Given that this has been on record for over 48 years, it’s a bit surprising to hear anyone confuse this logic with “specifically enumerated rights.”

Indeed, that is why pro-abortion partisans are forever looking for another route that ends at the same destination—abortion on demand—but not taking a detour to an unsupportable legal fiction.

Categories: Media Bias