A History of Opposition to Reproductive Freedom
• Since Scalia joined the Court in 1986, he has consistently voted in to limit or entirely abolish the constitutional protection for a woman’s right to choose.2
• He has held that a woman’s right to choose is not protected by the Constitution3 and that given the chance he would “explicitly” overrule Roe v. Wade.4
• He also supports the reversal of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case that limited but did not overrule Roe v. Wade’s core protection for a woman’s right to choose.5
• In 2007, he voted to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, federal legislation that outlaws certain second-trimester abortions and does not include any exception for when a woman’s health is threatened.6
• In the Federal Abortion Ban case, he joined Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion, which stated that “the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade has no basis in the Constitution.”7
• He supports a return to a pre-Roe framework of abortion regulation, which would allow states to criminalize abortion.8

• Scalia voted against the constitutionality of certain measures, upheld by the majority of the Court, that were designed to protect clinics from anti-choice violence.9
• Scalia also wrote the majority opinion in a case that found that anti-choice clinic blockaders did not violate federal civil rights laws.10
• Scalia supports extreme restrictions on a minor’s right to choose and would uphold mandatory parental notice requirements, even those that do not allow for the option of going to a judge in order to get around the notification requirement.11
• Scalia has consistently voted to uphold bans on the use of public funds for abortions.12
“[T]he Constitution contains no right to abortion.”13
“Roe was plainly wrong — even on the Court's methodology of ‘reasoned judgment,’ and even
more so (of course) if the proper criteria of text and tradition are applied.”14
“The issue is whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. . . . (1)[T]he Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.”15
“If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people — where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it — and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.”16
“I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott.”17
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/gove...nin-scalia.pdf
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.