‘Church teaching’ made Judge Napolitano pro-life
The judicial analyst who proclaims to be a “traditionalist Roman Catholic” is confident that his biblical foundation is consistent with the U.S. Constitution when it comes to abortion – unlike the many justices who have served in the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) over the past several decades.
“The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence is such a horrific hodgepodge,” Napolitano told Reason Magazine Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie in a recent interview.
But even though the 1973 landmark SCOTUS decision Roe v. Wade has been the rule of the land in America for more than 40 years, Napolitano expressed that he is “pleasantly surprised” about the number of small-government constitutionalists who also ascribe to his biblical view on abortion.
Reasoning vs. rationalization
The legal expert maintained that both biology and the jurisprudence of the Founding Fathers call upon every level of government to protect the sanctity of human life not just at birth … but from the moment of conception.
Napolitano also argued that former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s “infamous” contention – that abortion is a constitutional right upon which states may not impose an “undue burden” – is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.
“She just made that up out of whole cloth,” the conservative judge asserted. “It’s not used in any other area of human behavior.”
He maintains that the progressive mindset on abortion is rooted in the human desire to try and justify sin and excuse one from having any moral accountability for his or her actions.
“[Legal scholars’ pro-abortion reasoning is] nothing but a political canard intended to please the Left, who want to have sex without responsibility – without the natural consequences of it,” Napolitano insists. “There is no moral justification for killing a child in the womb.”
A mere growth or a real life?
During the interview, Gillespie – an advocate of abortion-on-demand – questioned Napolitano’s pro-life stance.
“When does the clump of cells become a child or is accorded personhood as a legal concept?” the Left-leaning editor asked. “Is it from the moment of conception?”
Napolitano was quick to respond by bringing up preborn children’s DNA and unique individuality within the womb from the initial joining of cells.
“The protection of the law is required from the moment of conception,” the pro-life judge answered Gillespie. “The only moral goal and activity of government is to protect natural rights.”
In addition, Napolitano stressed that innocent and vulnerable preborn children have inalienable rights the second they are conceived.
“The greatest natural right is the right to live,” the pro-family advocate continued. “The government’s obligation is to protect that.”
Wisdom firmly rooted
While Napolitano considers some of his views to be libertarian in nature, he professes that his mindset on many social issues is rooted not only in his religious beliefs, but in scientifically observable phenomena and sound legal scholarship.
“My opposition to abortion is not only because of Church teaching, but also because of a rational examination of the baby growing in the womb and a belief in the non-aggression principle,” the legal scholar shared.
The legal principles Napolitano mentions are universal tenets of jurisprudence.
“[By the non-aggressive principle, Napolitano is referring to] a cornerstone of small-government doctrine, which holds that it is wrong to initiate force against an innocent party,” LifeSiteNews explained. “While he supports the principle of subsidiarity – the Thomist notion that all government should be carried out by the lowest level of government possible because it is closest to the people – he would favor the federal government’s intervention in state affairs in order to protect life.”
Napolitano’s views on abortion are rare among libertarians and their presidential nominee, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson – an advocate of abortion-on-demand and opponent of conscience rights for Christian business owners. The social conservative judge used an example that is not used or mentioned by most libertarians to state his case.
“If the federal government is preventing a butcher from killing a baby, that’s a good thing for the federal government to do,” the traditionalist asserted. “If the states were to look the other way while butchers destroyed babies in the womb and the federal government didn’t do anything about it, it would be violating its obligation under the Fifth Amendment to make sure that life, liberty and property are not taken without due process.”