My reading of the recent decision, along with the concurring and dissenting opinions, of Gonzales v. Carhart has been complemented by examining commentaries of the majority opinion by Members of Congress and the representatives of influential and formidable interest groups, especially those from the pro-abortion lobby. I have previously offered some thoughts on the media reaction by the New York Times [HERE].

One reaction that I have to the negative commentary of the majority opinion and the decision beyond that of the media is that the authors of these critiques generally share a different view of human nature and the res publicae from what our Founders had back in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Most of the Founders possessed and exercised a sensible understanding of the natural law, which inspires authentic human reasoning, a crucial element of the tradition that underpins Catholic Legal Theory. It was this sensible understanding of the natural law and the development of human, i.e., positive, law that led them to conclude that there exist truths which are self-evident.

However, it seems that many in our country—and, for that matter the world—have replaced the self-evident truth about human life, as corroborated by embryonic medical science, with the erroneous belief that the target of any abortion, including Partial Birth Abortion, is something  other than a human being. But, this target is not merely a clump of cells, it is not just tissue that can be easily disposed of by the exercise of the “Constitutional liberty”— in reality an exaggerated autonomy—of some. The target or object of any abortion is, first and last, a human being—yes, a person—in his or her nascent stages. Human life, one of those self-evident truths, is comprised of many stages. But those stages, and how they are manifested in each human life—each person—are not materially altered by the differences found among human beings. I think the members of the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart are beginning to get this point and articulating it consistent with the underlying principles of the Republic and its Constitution, although some members of the Court, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, have been presenting this point for some time. However, the dissenters on the Court and the critics of the majority opinion appear to deny this self-evident truth about human nature and human life and have replaced it with an exaggerated understanding of human autonomy—which they call the exercise of liberty and a woman’s entitlement —that would permit, from their perspective, the “right” to destroy another human being by ignoring the reality of the latter.

The harsh criticisms of the majority opinion will like continue and fuel heated political debates in the coming election season. But, as Americans all, we must not forget the principles upon which our Republic was founded and which the majority have apparently rediscovered. In this context, Pope John Paul II offered some important counsel in Centesimus Annus when he stated that “a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.” [N. 46] He reiterated this point a few years later in Evangelium Vitae wherein he warned that when democracy contradicts its own principles (such as self-evident truths), it “effectively moves toward a form of totalitarianism.” [N. 20] I think the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart have come to acknowledge not only the truth of which the Pope spoke, regardless of their religious affiliation, but also understand, accept, and protect the principles upon which our Republic was founded.   RJA sj