Why the Costa Rica court case matters

When the U.S. Supreme Court re-hears Roe v. Wade

The following comes from a December 28 essay by Austin Ruse on TheCatholicThing blog site.

Justice Kennedy

Justice Kennedy

One day the Supreme Court will take a case that could overturn the regime of abortion currently allowed by the U.S. legal system.  When that happens, the country will have a legal and political conflagration such as it has never seen or heard of before. Massive armies on either wide will assemble and advance on each other and upon the Court.

The prospect of such a fight and what may follow is likely a reason that some people still poll in favor of Roe v Wade, even though they may believe our current regime of abortion for any or no reason is unjust.

You can be sure abortion proponents will throw the kitchen sink at the high court and at the country. They will include what they consider to be international norms. They will argue that the world is pro-choice and they will point to certain laws and documents to make their case. And they will cite the laws of other countries, particularly those in Europe.

They will invoke decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and U.N. treaties and the conclusions of treaty bodies. They will cite non-binding documents such as those that came out of the Cairo Conference on Population and Development. We may even be treated to lessons from a document of the African Union called the “Maputo Protocols,” the only international treaty that calls for legal abortion.

A case just handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights shows us how this works and gives us a glimpse into our own future.

Last week the court struck down a Costa Rican law that banned in vitro fertilization. Piero Tozzi of Alliance Defending Freedom explains that the court ruled such “restrictions violated rights to privacy, personal autonomy, and ‘sexual and reproductive health’ under the American Convention on Human Rights, commonly knows as the Pact of San José.” He says the Court also “ruled that a human embryo lacks the legal status of a ‘person,’” and that life begins not at conception, but at implantation – even though the convention is the only international treaty that explicitly protects the right to life “from conception.”

The glimpse into our future lies in the fact that the Court cited numerous foreign documents including the Cairo Program for Action, the Bejing Platform for Action, reports of the World Health Organization, general observations of a U.N. Treaty Monitoring Body, and cases from the European Court of Human Rights.

This is the long-time legal strategy of the international abortion lobby: to create a body of legal or quasi-legal decisions that courts may quote in striking down or upholding abortion laws. The court then uses these references to supposedly show a growing global consensus in favor of – in this case – in vitro fertilization, but more broadly “reproductive rights” that include a right to abortion.

The problem with these references is that they cannot properly be cited to reach any such conclusions. The Cairo and Beijing documents were non-binding documents and therefore cannot honestly represent any global consensus on IVF, abortion, or any other thing. U.N. Treaty Monitoring bodies do not have any authority to bind states to do anything. Still lawless judges, judges who stand for themselves and not the rule of law, do whatever pleases them.

Here is the problem for us. It is a dead certainty that abortion proponents will use these same documents and bodies when the Supreme Court eventually rehears Roe. Some on the Court will cite them, too, either a majority if Roe is upheld or a minority if it is struck down.

The Supreme Court has already shown a taste for this. Justices cited the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty the United States has never ratified, when they struck down the death penalty for crimes committed under the age of majority. In the same case, the Court cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty we have ratified, but they referred to a part of it, on the death penalty, that we formally rejected at ratification.

When the Court constitutionalized homosexual sodomy, Justice Kennedy cited decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In that same Lawrence decision, he cited an amicus brief submitted by former U.N. human rights chief Mary Robinson that claimed international norms now demand striking down laws against homosexual acts.

The current Supreme Court may very well continue to go this way. Scalia and Thomas are already on record opposing the use of foreign and international law and both Roberts and Alito rejected this practice during their Senate hearings. But the majority of the Court – Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan – is fine with it.

The Costa Rica case will not have any direct impact on the United States. We are not a party to the Pact of San José and we already have the most wild and wooly laws on IVF, that is, we have no regulations at all. The case will have an impact on IVF laws around Latin America and will eventually have a profound impact on legal abortion around the continent.

You can be sure, however, that the use of foreign law and international bodies will be noted approvingly by the usual suspects on the Court.

The Costa Rica case shows in great detail what Robert Bork described in one of his final and most important books, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, how judges, those he called “Olympians,” look down from on high, contort law, and impose their own private contortions on the rest of us.

To read the original story, click here.

Buffer
To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. I do not think our Supreme Court would ever dismiss Roe vs. Wade. Consider the recent decision by Supreme Justice John Roberts the Turncoat on legalizing Death Panels. Not gonna happen.

  2. “I don’t believe the mainstream media” is a wholly inadequate phrase to express the disaster of the present moment.

    At the height of Soviet power, ordinary Russians were adept at reading between the lines of official pronouncements — roundly disbelieved — to discern underground political currents within the Politburo.

    Almost no Americans display any such inclination for discernment. Our media megalopoly has perfected marketing psychology to the frightening extent that, as long as the masses are kept comfortable and well-fed, they are only too willing to be brainwashed. “Entertainment Tonight” as the neo-Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”.

    Our elites have greater disinformative control over the minds of our countrymen than in any other society at any previous time in history. When DEMOCRAT pollster Pat Caddell pronounced the media “enemy of the American people”, he implied that they have become a ruling force unmatched by checks and balances such as were institutionalized in the late American government.

    The days are now thoroughly past, when the media radicalized by three generations of cultural communism (since the establishment of the American branch of the Frankfurt School by Herbert Marcuse of the New Left), functioned as an opposition force, lastly against the Bush 43 Neocons. The American media now function as a de facto organ of the government, much as the Patriarchate of Moscow has been a department of the Russian state, continually before, during and after communism.

    Our semi-official propaganda class will not relinquish their power when the people revolt against Obama’s ultra-radicalism, they will bring down our governing institutions around our heads. Then you will see a deadly dichotomy arise between left and right (the libertarians are no friends of life), much like the Spanish Civil War. (Get as far as possible from Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls” for the truth; Ferdinand Franco died a poor man.) The Church will suffer the worst.

  3. Larry from RI says:

    The Costa Rica case shows in great detail what Robert Bork described in one of his final and most important books, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, how judges, those he called “Olympians,” look down from on high, contort law, and impose their own private contortions on the rest of us.

    Thank you for reminding us of Judge Bork’s last and timely book.

    This with the fact that the potus and the Senate can ratify treaties and
    these become the law of the land.

  4. Today’s technology proves that at 9 weeks and 3 days, the unborn baby feels sensation.
    This means he also feels pain.
    Pulling off his arms, legs, or head is barbaric. Burning him with salt solutions are barbaric.

    Share this non-religious medical site – ” ENDOWMENT for HUMAN DEVELOPMENT “, and view the latest in technology.
    Clearly these are human babies.

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      Paula,

      THEY have admitted that they are human babies, they just don’t care!

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

      • Larry from RI says:

        they just don’t care!

        Ken,you hit the nail on the head!!!!

      • “They” also admit, and have for a long time, that abortion is killing, or murdering, a baby … but they add that it is “necessary”. Read the story of Cain and Abel, and then read the story of David and Bathsheba: Then you will be looking at the explanation of the abortion mindset … well, actually, much of that mindset is far worse, so to get a look at it, you’ll have to read what Scripture tells us about the devil.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Post your comment

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.