skip navigation
search

 
Ohio v. Akron Center (88-805), 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
Syllabus
 
Dissent
 
Concurrence
 
Concurrence
 
Opinion
 
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version

OHIO v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

No. 88-805

[June 25, 1990]

Justice Scalia, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court, because I agree that the Ohio statute neither deprives minors of procedural due process nor contradicts our holdings regarding the constitutional right to abortion. I continue to believe, however, as I said in my separate concurrence last Term in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. (1989), that the Constitution contains no right to abortion. It is not to be found in the longstanding traditions of our society, nor can it be logically deduced from the text of the Constitutionnot, that is, without volunteering a judicial answer to the nonjusticiable question of when human life begins. Leaving this matter to the political process is not only legally correct, it is pragmatically so. That aloneand not lawyerly dissection of federal judicial precedentscan produce compromises satisfying a sufficient mass of the electorate that this deeply felt issue will cease distorting the remainder of our democratic process. The Court should end its disruptive intrusion into this field as soon as possible.