Regarding Roe v. Wade

It is not possible to know in advance what sorts of legislative challenges will face the Congress in 2011 and forward, and therefore to set out numerous specific promises of action risks opening the door to the disappointment of the voters who anticipate a given set of behaviors.

My position with respect to the Constitution is this : at the age of 17, and several times thereafter, I gave my word that I would uphold that document and defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I intend to stay true to my word. There are those who claim that the Constitution is a document which must be interpreted in view of changing times, but I strongly disagree, for the freedoms from government oppression outlined in that document can only change if the definition of freedom itself is altered.

I have outlined in brief a number of points which I will endeavor to uphold. Some of those may be subject to minor flexibility, since I do not claim to have already formulated the optimal solutions to all problems facing the United States. I fully intend to faithfully represent those who will have chosen me to represent their interests, and I expect that at times they and I will have differences of opinion; should I be in opposition to the desires of a majority of my constituents, they may expect a strong personal protest before I carry out their wishes against my own judgment.

There are, however, several positions upon which I intend to stand resolute regardless the desires of the majority of those whom I represent. These are the protection of the unborn, the end of deficit spending by the United States, and the right of the people to know in advance what their representatives are deciding for them.

I will not vote for any legislation which includes Federal funding for abortions. It is my belief that life begins at conception, and, that once begun, a life should not be ended by men without conviction of a capital crime under due process of law. That is a religious and moral belief, and runs counter to the religious belief utilized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade when it arbitrarily decided that life begins for the unborn some 55 days after conception.

In deciding that case, the Court stated,

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

Then, rejecting the implications of personhood 'within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment', the majority of the Court proclaimed,

"...the word 'person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

To which Justice Rehnquist rebutted in his dissent,

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and 'has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.'

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

The majority of the Court, however, preferred to abandon the republican guarantees of legal impartiality for the democratic dogma that the few must obey the many, and that might makes right, claiming,

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable', that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
...
"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling point', in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Based on the Court's own decision and the advances that have occurred in medical practice in the 37+ years that have passed since the decision, it has been the fault of the State legislatures and attorneys general that no new legislation protecting the unborn from murder has been passed and successfully withstood court challenge. With the ability of science to bring an unborn child to term outside the womb, and the relatively rare occasion when physicians cannot rescue both mother and child in the event of complications, the day will soon arrive (if it is not already here) when the State may, meeting the requirements of the Roe v. Wade decision, proscribe abortion at any stage of development of the child "except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

The Court's position of continued support for Roe v. Wade is strangely paralleled with that of the Catholic Church v. Galileo; when the Law attempts to regulate scientific or technological matters, it invariably ends up looking foolish.

In any event, the Court has held that it is the responsibility of the States and not the Congress to regulate abortion. I will not support any legislation which takes from the States that responsibility, and I will absolutely not support any Federal funding for abortion.