by Art Helms
In a July, 2005 “Meet the Press” interview, Senator Richard Durbin stated that he would have “no litmus test” for Judge John Roberts’ confirmation hearings. But, when Tim Russert asked how he would react if Roberts could find no “right to privacy”, in the Constitution, the Senator stated “I would have to vote against him.” This is another example of the shifting sands of liberal thought. This “bob and weave” strategy is exactly what saddled America with the abominable Roe.
Supreme Court Justice, Harry Blackmun, could not find the right to privacy in the Constitution, either. In order to write his Roe v. Wade Majority Decision, he had to find it somewhere. Earlier, he had postulated that it could be found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Bill of Rights.
My guess is that he probably held his tattered copy of the Constitution up to a light, and looked in the shadows for it. There it was, in the penumbras, as he had said. That light, shining through his wadded and wrinkled copy of the constitution, provided just the right emanations that made it possible to read the words “right to privacy”, probably on the wall of his study.
Senator Durbin, Sir, did you realize what you required of Judge Roberts? Can you guess what the odds are, that Roberts could wad his copy exactly the same way that Blackmun did? And did Blackmun have a 40, 60, or 100 watt bulb in his lamp? The odds are astronomical! But entirely possible, I suppose, if the wall texture was exactly the same.
But, Sir, even if the words “right to privacy” were clearly written in the Constitution, why is the definition of “privacy” not considered, year after year, whenever Congress decides the annual Title X funding amount to Planned Parenthood? If abortion is a “privacy” issue, why do I have to pay for it?