FREEDOM'S LAW
The Moral Reading of the American Constitution
Ronald Dworkin
Harvard University Press (1996)

"No judicial decision in our time has aroused as much sustained public outrage, emotion, and physical violence, or as much intemperate professional criticism, as the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which declared, by a seven to two majority, that women have a constitutionally protected right to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. In the years since, anti-abortion groups and political conservatives have campaigned with single-minded conviction to reverse that decision....Ronald Dworkin, Freedom's Law (1997 paperback edition), Part 1, Life, Death, and Race, Chapter 1, "Roe in Danger," page 44

"...The key question in the debate over Roe v. Wade is not a metaphysical question about the concept of personhood or a theological question about whether a fetus has a soul, but a legal question about the correct interpretation of the Constitution which in our political system must be settled one way or the other judicially, by the Supreme Court, rather than politically. It is the question whether the fetus is a constitutional person, that is, a person whose rights and interests must be ranked equally important with those of other people in the scheme of individual rights the Constitution establishes. That is a complex and difficult question, and it does involve moral issues. But it is nevertheless different from the metaphysical question philosophers and theologians debate; it is entirely consistent to think for example, that a fetus is just as much a human being as an adult, or that it has a soul from the moment of conception, and yet that the Constitution, on the best interpretation, does not grant a fetus rights competitive with the rights it grants other people." Ronald Dworkin, Freedom's Law (1997 paperback edition), Part 1, Life, Death, and Race, Chapter 1, "Roe in Danger," page 46

BOOK DESCRIPTION
Amazon.com
"Freedom's Law is Dworkin's impassioned defense of free speech and conscience. The thread that ties these essays together is his criticism of strict historical interpretation of the Constitution, which holds that our modern-day understanding must be strictly limited to the concerns of the Constitution's framers, rather than the underlying principles embodied within. Divided into three parts, the book examines the soundness of Roe v. Wade, defends a broad reading of the First Amendment and attacks the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas."

INGRAM
"Dworkin argues that Americans have been systemically misled about what their Constitution is and how judges decide what it means. What does its abstract language mean when it is applied to the political controversies that divide Americans—about affirmative action, euthanasia, censorship, pornography, and homosexuality, for example? Is the moral reading of the Constitution—the only reading that really makes sense—really undemocratic? In this fascinating book, Dworkin discusses these and other aspects of the document."

BOOK REVIEWS
Richard A. Epstein–NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW
"Ronald Dworkin, one of the most distinguished constitutional thinkers of our time, offers us a collection of his previously published essays that is both eloquently written and forcefully argued...his defense of a vibrant, open, and tolerant society is one of which John Stuart Mill would be proud."

MIDWEST BOOK REVIEW
"The Bill of Rights receives a close inspection in this moral analysis of the Constitution and its underlying framework. From the abstract language of the rights package to its practical applications in changing society, Dworkin provides a close inspection of the process of American legal rights and issues."

Mortimer Sellers–WASHINGTON POST
"Should be read as the most lucid and convincing partisan brief for the 'liberal' position in contemporary constitutional disputes...Dworkin is almost always right about legal principles and always elegant."

David Mehegan–BOSTON GLOBE
"A rich, learned and profound [book]...It is [the] 'originalist' approach —that we must go structly by the words in the Constitution and avoid creative interpretations—that Dworkin disputes in this collection of essays... [Dworkin's] ideas are stimulating and his writing is able, forcible and clear."

David Pannick–THE TIMES (London)
"An elegant series of essays...on difficult topics of constitutional principle....analyzes, with force and clarity, the rights of citizens in relation to abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action, libel and pornography... Recommended to everyone interested in jurisprudence."