Writer Michael Kinsley labeled the Roe v. Wade decision "constitutional origami." Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe wrote that "the substantive judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found." Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe v. Wade before her elevation to the court. "Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict," she wrote in 1985. In a devastating collection of more than a dozen quotes from prominent liberals, Tim Carney demonstrates that pro-choice advocates, in moments of candor, recognize that Roe v. Wade invented, rather than found, rights in the Constitution. When Samuel Alito wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he wasn't saying anything different than Richard Cohen, Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and other honest pro-choicers who cheer the ends but lament the means of Roe v. Wade.

I think it's a bit like commenting on race: blacks can, whites can't. Liberals can say Roe was wrongly decided, conservatives can't.

Liberals are perfectly consistent within their own judicial philsophy if they say Roe could not be found, and yet still support it. The Living Constitution allows for things like that.

I knew there was hope for Federalism when Richard Cohen (of ALL people!) came out against the so-called "right to privacy" found in Roe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html

Except the "living Constitution" is itself incoherent (as deconstructionism generally is incoherent). Consistency cannot be grounded in incoherence.

Rights are endowed by our Creator, who created everything ex nihilo, so it is perfectly ok for rights also to come from nothing.

"Rights are endowed by our Creator, who created everything ex nihilo, so it is perfectly o.k. for rights also to come from nothing."

Where to start? (1) I'm not convinced that creation ex nihilo (that is, creation ex nihilo subjecti) is intelligible. At any rate, it is utterly mysterious to me. (2) Mystery is acceptable concerning the revelation, but it is a poor foundation for jurisprudence. (3) Aside from these, interpretations do not 'come from nothing' for the deconstructionist. Interpretations do have some (admittedly strange and unfathomable) relation to the text. If they did not, it would not be an interpretation; there would be nothing to interpret. (4) Finally, 'endowed' as you intend it, i.e., positive endowment, is inconsistent with the tradition you invoke (viz., the Declaration). It is, rather, a natural endowment.

The following quotes are from a Wall Street Journal editorial dated 1/22/98:

"Human life, even at its earliest stages, has a certain right which must be recognized--the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old." --Senator Edward Kennedy, in a 1971 letter.

"I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe they are wrong." --President Clinton, then Governor, in a 1986 letter to Arkansas right to Life.

"Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception...The [Roe] ruling was unjust and it is incumbent upon Congress to correct the injustice."--House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt writing in 1977.

Stating his "deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong" and explaining that he voted to amend the Civil Rights Act to define the word "person" to "include unborn children from the moment of conception." --Vice President Al Gore, in a 1984 letter to a constituent.

"What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of person, and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?" --Jesse Jackson in a 1977 article.

Just to add to the list, the obnoxious Alan Dershowitz also said Roe was "bad Constitutional law."

Wow... I am glad that others are now discussing a much-neglected point of this debate - that support for abortion "rights" and support for the Roe v. Wade decision are two separate issues. I had addressed this very point in a Watchblog article (from January 31, 2005):
Pro-Choicers Also Oppose Roe v. Wade

[Note: Shortly after it was published, that piece generated over 90 comment posts... Some are by the same people posting multiple comments in the dialogue, but that's still more than any of my blog entries has ever received.]

I'm excited to finally find another commentator who is looking at this issue from this perspective. Mr. Carney is an excellent writer (a graduate of Young America's Foundation's National Journalism Center!), and I will definitely have to bookmark that compilation of sources for future reference!
(I just saw somewhere, the other day, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had criticized Roe before getting on the Court... I already knew about Kinsley and Cohen - both mentioned in Jeremy Lott's pertinent article from when President Bush first assumed office - but the other citations are quite helpful.)