Profile image

Samuel Alito

U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Tier 4 - Personhood Never


A brief catalog of Samuel Alito's abortion-related rulings as a federal judge, with links to the full-text of his actual opinions, shows, contrary to the claim of prominent pro-life leaders, that Justice Alito repeatedly sides with the pro-abortion industry, not only ruling as one would expect from a typical "pro-choice" judge, but issuing opinions as expected from an abortion extremist.

  • As a Supreme Court Justice whom pro-lifers think is one of their own: by his undeniable documented record, Samuel Alito:
    - voted as a judge for tax-funded abortions
    - helped write what is a virtual partial-birth abortion manual
    - ordered taxpayers to pay for pro-abortion attorneys
    - voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal
    - had a pro-abortion record prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court
    - authored the Supreme Court's pro-abortion "undue burden" standard
    - voted to prevent parents from suing for the wrongful death of an unborn child
  • Voted for tax-funded abortions: In 1995 Samuel Alito voted to keep it easy to get a tax-funded abortion by claiming rape - even when no crime had been reported to police.1 This vote revealed Alito's view that unborn children who have a criminal for a parent do not have a right to life
  • Voted to prevent parents from suing for the wrongful death of an unborn child: In 1997 Alito voted to prevent parents from suing for the wrongful death of a fetus, ruling that he could find no legal protection for an unborn child from the malpractice of a doctor, and by extension from a criminal act.2 Only a person who believed an unborn child was less than a person could make such a ruling
  • Voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal: In 2000 Alito voted to keep legal Partial Birth Abortion in NJ, for process reasons.3 The Nuremberg trials taught the world that "just following orders" was no excuse for committing murder. Samuel Alito either never learned that lesson or disagrees with it
  • Ordered taxpayers to pay for pro-abortion attorneys: In 2001 Alito ordered NJ taxpayers to give $522,992.84 to Planned Parenthood attorneys for their fight against NJ's PBA ban (which he upheld on appeal in 2002).4 It's bad enough that Alito hands down pro-abortion rulings but the fact that he is in favor of requiring pro-lifers to pay for pro-abortion victories is especially egregious
  • Complied with China's one-child policy: In 2004 Alito forced a Chinese father to return to China to face the government that forcibly killed his eight-month old unborn child.5 Apparently Alito is only pro-choice when it comes to killing unborn children. He is obviously not pro-choice regarding millions of Chinese desiring to have more than one child
  • Had a pro-abortion record prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court: Alito has a solid 10-year record of pro-abortion rulings while serving on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court.6 With such an easily documented record, it is inexcusable that so many conservative organizations that call themselves "pro-life" campaigned to get Alito on the bench.
  • Authored the Supreme Court's pro-abortion "undue burden" standard: In 1991 Alito refined the new concept of "undue burden" which restricts anti-abortion laws,7 and in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted Alito's refined standard.8 Tens of millions of abortions have seared the conscience of the nation, including that of the pro-life industry which praised George W. Bush's nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court. To break through the widespread moral denial that exists now even within pro-life circles, it's often necessary to make an analogy to black slavery or the German genocide of Jews to comprehend the immorality of compromised incrementalism. Thus today, the depravity would be obvious to us if Samuel Alito had ruled that a restriction on the gassing of Jewish children was permissible if it did not create an undo burden on those attempting to kill them, or that a restriction on the lynching of blacks was permissible if it did not create an undo burden on those attempted to to dispose of them.
  • Alito helped enact a virtual partial-birth abortion manual: Alito is pro-abortion as demonstrated by his joining in the majority opinion of Gonzales v. Carhart decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. This decision did not uphold a ban to Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA); it only imposed a four-inch variation to standard PBA. The PBA Ban and the Supreme Court opinion upholding it require, for a "legal" partial-birth abortion, that the abortionist deliver the baby "only" to the navel, rather than to the neck, before killing him or her.9 (See also Judge Roy Moore's public apology for having initially misrepresented the PBA ban and ruling as a good development.10 And see Dr. Alan Keyes condemnation of the ruling. And see Dr. James Dobson's comment that, "Ending partial-birth abortion… did not save a single human life."11)
  • Is evidence that strategy of the regulators has failed: Samuel Alito is the culmination Notre Dame Law School's professor emeritus Charles Rice said, "Every justice now on the court accepts the Roe holding that the unborn child is a non-person..."12
  • Is further evidence that previous pro-life strategy has failed: American RTL has offered a $10,000 cash prize to National RTL if their general counsel James Bopp can name even a single U.S. Supreme Court Justice who has ever advocated, in writing or otherwise, or authored or joined in any ruling or dissent, advocating that the unborn child has a right to life.13
Summary:

Alito's record shows that he rejects the truth that an unborn child has a right to life. Tragically, many Christian leaders present him to the faithful as a principled and pro-life justice. Focus on the Family's DVD series, The Truth Project, warns Christians about moral relativism in law, which is called legal positivism. Christians who fail to heed that warning defend the rulings of Samuel Alito, even those which directly lead to the killing of the innocent, as justifiable because Alito was "following the process." But no "process" defense could be valid neither at Nuremberg nor anywhere that judges rule to permit the intentional killing of the innocent, whether blacks, Jews, or children.

Footnotes: