multilingualism (except for Latin). Hispanicsrnshould be encouraged to learnrnEnglish. Some first steps, not mentionedrnin this document, would be tornpull down every Spanish street sign inrnMiami, to abolish public-school instructionrnin Spanish, and to burn all foreignlanguagernballots. And speaking of language,rnthe report wants the Bible andrnthe liturgy to be rewritten with “inclusive”rnlanguage so they can get the feminist’srnnonhousekeeping seal of approval.rnBe ready for “Our Parent, Who Art inrnHeaven.”rnTo make sure that no green shootsrnpenetrate the concrete, the report callsrnfor enforcement committees in everyrndiocese to stamp out “sexism” andrnscreening panels to prevent nonfeministsrnfrom being ordained. Any youngrnman who agrees with St. Paul, St. Augustine,rnSt. Thomas Aquinas, and everyrnother orthodox Christian teacher on thisrnissue must be barred from the priesthood.rnThe report, however, isn’t all bad: itrncriticizes abortion, in passing, and opposesrnfemale priests, with clenchedrnteeth. But why should normal Catholicsrnpay any attention to a document thatrnurges them to give lesbians “specialrnconsideration” because they have beenrn”belittled and demeaned”? Belittledrnand demeaned? They should try being arnwhite, middle-aged, middle-classrnCatholic heterosexual male.rn—Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.rnT H E SUPREME C O U R T S recentrnCasey decision on abortion is a memorablernexample of sociological balderdash.rnThe jomt decision began, “Liberty findsrnno refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt,”rnto which Justice Scalia fired back in hisrndissent, “Liberty finds no refuge in thisrnjurisprudence of confusion.” Scalia’srnobservation becomes painfully clearrnwhen one reads the Court’s decision.rnDeclaring they would not overrule thern”central holding” of Roe v. Wade, JusticesrnO’Connor, Kennedy, and Souterrnargued that their decision was justifiedrnbecause some people have grown accustomedrnto abortion. “[F]or two decadesrnof economic and social developments,rnpeople have organized their intimate relationshipsrnand made choices that definerntheir views of themselves and theirrnplaces in society, in reliance on the availabilityrnof abortion in the event that contraceptionrnshould fail.” They thenrnweighed the cost of Roe’s “repudiationrnas it would fall on those who have reliedrnreasonably on the rule’s continuedrnapplication”: “Abortion is customarilyrnchosen as an unplanned response to thernconsequence of unplanned activity orrnto the failure of conventional birth control,rnand except on the assumption thatrnno intercourse would have occurred butrnfor Roe’s holding, such behavior may appearrnto justify no reliance claim. . . . Torneliminate the issue of reliance that easily,rnhowever, one would need to limitrncognizable reliance to specific instancesrnof sexual activity.”rnNext the jurists argued that “the abilityrnof women to participate equally inrnthe economic and social life of the Nationrnhas been facilitated by their abilityrnto control their reproductive lives.”rnThus, “the reservations any of us mayrnhave in reaffirming the central holdingrnof Roe are outweighed,” meaning theyrncould not overturn the precedent.rnTo be sure, the Justices did employrnlegalese. They declared that the forcernof the principle of stare decisis compelledrnthem to uphold Roe. Yet theyrndid not maintain all of the Roe precedent,rnchoosing instead to repudiate itsrntrimester framework, while reaffirmingrnits “central holding.”rnSurprisingly, the opinion describingrnthe central holding, rather than focusingrnon the famous 1973 right to privacyrndiscerned in the “penumbra” of thernConstitution, read more like one ofrnNARAL’s television commercials. It declaredrn”a woman’s right to choose anrnabortion” without “undue interferencernfrom the State.” Abortion, said the jointrnJustices, is a “fundamental right” protectedrnby the due process clause of thernFourteenth Amendment, a special “liberty”rnnot to be deprived. The “urgentrnclaims of a woman to retain the ultimaterncontrol over her destiny and her body”rnare claims “implicit” in the meaning ofrnliberty. However, rather than comingrnunder “strict scrutiny” as with otherrn”fundamental rights” (Justice Blackmun’srnview), abortion laws are to bernevaluated by a new standard establishedrnby the joint opinion, the “undue burden”rntest. In this manner, the jointrnopinion upheld most of Pennsylvania’srnDECEMBER 1992/7rnrnrn