Roe v. Wade

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which raises the question whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to bear arms applies to states and local governments. Going into argument, incorporation of the Second Amendment right seemed a given - after all, states already have to obey virtually every right in the Bill of Rights. The critical question was whether the Court would breathe new life into the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and honor the part of the Fourteenth Amendment's text that clearly protects substantive fundamental rights from state infringement.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended to be the centerpiece of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it was written out of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases. The decision has been regarded as one of the worst in the Court's history, and roundly condemned by the Amendment's framers in the 1870s, Justice Harlan in the early 20th century, and Justice Black in the 1940s. The overwhelming consensus among scholars across the ideological spectrum - reflected in a law professors' brief filed by CAC in McDonald - is that Slaughter-House obliterated the text and history of the Clause through a profoundly incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the Privileges or Immunities Clause received a chilly reception from the Court on Tuesday, especially from those Justices who most profess to take the Constitution's text and history seriously. Justice Scalia belittled the Clause, accusing Alan Gura, McDonald's attorney, of "bucking for some place on some law school faculty" by advancing an argument that was "the darling of the professoriate." Scalia, supposedly the Court's chief originalist, wouldn't even consider the merits of the argument. Chief Justice Roberts, too, refused to follow the Constitution's text and history where it leads. He explicitly worried that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would allow for broad protections of substantive liberty; he preferred to rely on the Due Process Clause, since that text is about process, and does not easily lend itself to protecting substantive fundamental rights. While Roberts and Scalia were content to rely on substantive due process to protect gun rights, they seemed to want to reserve the opportunity to bash the doctrine in future cases involving rights they don't recognize. Other Justices were less overtly hostile, but none seemed willing to revive the Clause.

In light of its reception at the Court, was Gura too bold?

It's been thirty-seven years since the Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, and in that time, without fail, a woman's ability to obtain an abortion has been under attack. Between stringent state laws, a lack of funding, and a severe shortage of abortion providers, abortion is virtually unattainable for significant numbers of women.

And it gets worse. The promise of affordable healthcare for all is quickly turning for women as federal lawmakers threaten to strip millions of the abortion coverage that they already have. And this past week, the judge presiding over the trial of the man accused in the shooting death of Kansas provider Dr. George Tiller essentially opened the door to a dangerously forgiving legal defense for those who commit violent acts-including murder-against doctors who provide abortion.

We expect judges to uphold the rule of law and make sure that its protections apply equally to everyone. But Judge Warren Wilbert (left) has stepped over that line. Last week, the judge indicated that he will allow the accused, Scott Roeder, to potentially avoid conviction on first-degree murder charges on the grounds that he honestly, albeit unreasonably, believed his actions - shooting Dr. Tiller at point blank range while he was serving as an usher at his church - were justified to prevent Dr. Tiller from performing abortions. After considering this evidence, the jury may have the option of convicting Roeder of voluntary manslaughter, a considerably less serious crime which also carries a significantly smaller penalty.

The fallout from such a ruling cannot be understated. If anti-choice extremists can justify murdering or physically harming abortion providers because they personally believe that abortion is wrong, then they would be, in effect, above the law. Take it from Reverend Don Spitz of Virginia, a member of the notoriously anti-choice group Army of God himself. He predicts that the judge's decision "may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk." As a result, abortion providers will fear for their lives even more than they already do because the laws that protect other citizens from violence do not apply with equal force to them.