The latest
Right Wing spin on Roberts and Abortion is this:
The third position is that the Constitution generally does not speak to the question of abortion. Under this substantively neutral position, American citizens would have the constitutional power to determine through their state representatives what the abortion policy in their own states would be. This neutral position -- which three members of the current Court, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, embrace -- also happens to be the proper reading of the Constitution (as I explain more fully here).
Insofar as sensible political labels might be applied to these three positions, it would seem plain that the first (pro-abortion) position would be labeled liberal (with the Roe version of that position being radical), the second (pro-life) would be labeled conservative, and the third (neutral) would be labeled moderate.
This is as asinine an argument as I have ever run across and demonstrates a misunderstanding of Constitutional principles of epic proportions. The Constitution is "neutral" on abortion is what Roberts will tell us? No kidding. This is news how? Do they expect the Constitution to take a specific position on abortion?
Here's a question, is Roberts "neutral" on the right to privacy? Does he think the Constitution does not recognize a right to be let alone? To make one's own decisions when it comes to their own body?
Because if the Constitution is "neutral" on abortion, but recognizes a right to privacy (see Griswold), by what right would the State violate a woman's PRIVATE decision on contraceptives and terminating a pregnancy?
It requires a compelling state interest Judge Roberts. A "neutral" Constitution on the issue hardly makes the State's interest compelling.
I've been one to believe we argue Roe as Roe, choice as choice. But if this is the line the GOP will take, privacy is the slam dunk.