Roe v. Wade Is Far From Settled Law
Murdering the Unborn Child is a practice as old as mankind itself, but that doesn’t make it a moral practice or something acceptable with any real justification. The Democratic Party’s century long advocacy and support for Baby Murder doesn’t make it more palatable, since their reasons have long been based on premises beyond immoral, as they have yet to be able to acknowledge that an embryo is a living being, while they also have pulled a non-existent “right to abortion” from thin air, largely due to a January 22nd 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade.
For all familiar with Christianity, in Jeremiah 1:5, God tells us all:
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to the nations.”
On December 1st 2021, America witnessed arguments between the pro-death abortionists and the pro-life defenders of the Unborn Child unfold before the Supreme Court and a fight between evil and good, in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case initiated in the wake of a Mississippi law that bans all abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. It’s a case that threatens the continuation of Roe v. Wade as “settled law”, since a good bit of the conversation questioned the notion of stare decisis or precedent. Several cases of the Court reversing itself were scrutinized by attorneys and Justices alike, and the Court appears to be preparing to make a major change in its abortion jurisprudence, after several hours of closing arguments from the State of Mississippi and the Biden regime.
The Mississippi law stands in direct contravention of the 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey cases and Supreme Court precedents that prohibited any state ban on abortion until fetal viability, which was generally accepted as somewhere between 23 and 24 weeks.
One should note at this point, as some background information on Planned Parenthood, that during the 1920s, Margaret Sanger embraced eugenics as a nurse associated with the Industrial Workers of the World and Emma Goldman, who was one of the founders of the American Communist Party and a mentor to Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. Sanger went on to found the American Birth Control League in 1925, which eventually became Planned Parenthood; she was also a devout racist who created the Negro Project in 1939 with a mission to sterilize unsuspecting black women and those she viewed as undesirables of society. In Sanger’s own words, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”
Due to the absence of any right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution and the many false assumptions and arbitrary reasoning used by the Court to establish said “right”, in all subsequent challenges that came before the Court over the decades, attorneys had to argue precedent since nothing exists in the actual body of the Constitution or any original understanding of it that suggested any right to an abortion. And unlike all other of our country’s healthcare questions, abortion has been removed, by and large, from any real due process of “the law” being applied under any existing U.S. code, essentially amounting to a construct of nine Supreme Court Justices that circumvented the will of the people in fifty states and the principles of our Founders.
If we’re going to debate precedents, shouldn’t we be reviewing our previous two centuries, when virtually every single state had laws banning all abortions?
A majority of America’s states had laws that criminalized abortion, by 1858. By the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, approximately three-quarters of our states had such statutes, and by 1883, every single state had laws that banned abortion. And regardless of how one interprets the 14th Amendment, while it may not protect the UnBorn Child from being aborted, it also most certainly doesn’t state that any woman has any right to murder her UnBorn Child in the womb.
When Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. Solicitor General, fell back on the 14th Amendment argument, and as reported by Katie Pavlich at Townhall, Justice Clarence Thomas, normally one of the more quiet and reserved Justices, made the following observations and ended with a question, saying:
“If we are talking about the 2nd Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the 4th Amendment, I know what we’re talking about, because it’s written. It’s there. What specifically is right here [in the 14th Amendment] that we’re talking about?”
When something isn’t specifically addressed by the Constitution, it must be left to the states, the people, to decide. And by the early 1970s, they were holding referendum elections and deciding, by in large, in favor of life which sparked the sort of judicial activism that led to Roe v. Wade and the subsequent defense of its lawless nature as “settled law”.
Nine Black Robes ruling that an embryo isn’t a “person” doesn’t make it so, unless one is a blathering idiot and a science denier, since life begins at conception. The measure of that UnBorn Child’s viability outside the womb is equally as capricious and arbitrary as the Court’s ruling that abortion is a right, especially after a 21 week old infant was helped to survive outside the womb last year, by remarkable advances in modern medicine. Life is life, and a life so innocent should be protected above all else.
And neither can anyone reasonably view the arguments of Julie Rikelman, attorney for the Center for Reproduction Rights, as any sound basis for going forward with Baby Murder as America’s status quo, as she stated:
“Two generations have now relied on this right. And one out of every four women makes the decision to end a pregnancy.”
So what is this? The “Everybody is doing it, so it must be right” perspective?
Rikelman also argued that Mississippi’s case was very similar to cases that have been previously rejected, stating Casey as her proof, and this prompted Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, to school the pro-death legal team by way of a question he posed to Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General, asking:
“Is it your argument that a case can never be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong?
“I think that, at the very least, the state would have to come forward with some kind of materially changed circumstance or some kind of materially new argument, and Mississippi hasn’t done so in this case.”
Shredding her argument, Alito then asked:
“So suppose Plessy v. Ferguson [an 1896 decision that affirmed the constitutionality of racial segregation laws] was reargued in 1897, so nothing had changed. Would it not be sufficient to say that was an egregiously wrong decision on the day it was handed down and now it should be overruled?”
In part, the Fifth Amendment was also used as a tool to enable women to receive abortions, as the Justices also focused on women’s right to privacy and “due process”. But what about due process under the law for the UnBorn Child?
Scott Stewart, Mississippi’s Solicitor General, told the Court that the legality of abortion was still an unsettled matter in America, forty-eight years after Roe. The primary premise he asserted was that matters of this importance affecting all Americans, in one way or another, must be settled by democratically elected state legislatures and the people with the most at stake, rather than the Court.
The State of Mississippi’s legal brief presented to the Court even went so far as to state that Roe v. Wade and Casey should be overturned on the basis of stare decisis, as it notes these cases departure from all our nation’s prior history and separation from Constitutional principles and a longstanding dedication to the preservation of life. At one point, it states:
“Abortion is fundamentally different from any right this Court has ever endorsed. No other right involves, as abortion does, ‘the purposeful termination of a potential life’ … Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”
Shortly after Roe was delivered by the Court, John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion and a Harvard professor, wrote:
“Roe is bad … because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
Much of the precedence for our legal system emanates from English Common Law, and as such, one would be remiss if one didn’t mention that many early U.S. lawyers such as Louis Brandeis and Sam Warren relied heavily on English Common Law in 1890, when they wrote the Right to Privacy. They revealed that William Blackstone, an English legal scholar whose words shaped our Declaration of Independence, declared specific rights for the UnBorn Child, writing:
“Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit.” (from page 105 of Black’s Law Dictionary)
An amicus brief filed with the Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization by Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, an obstetrician, Dr. Colleen Malloy, a neonatologist, and Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, a diagnostic radiologist, detail how far science has advanced in dealing with pregnancies, revealing that viability now stands at 21 weeks of gestation, and also noting at 12 weeks, the little human in the womb can feel “immediate and unreflective pain”. They further explain that the science now makes it possible to intervene and treat UnBorn Children in utero as early as 15 weeks gestation, and even at such an early stage, the human form of the child in the womb is undeniable.
The three female physicians suggest that since Casey doesn’t account for the very human aspects of the UnBorn Child and the pro-death camp is so reliant on stare decisis where Casey is concerned, the conservative majority has the blueprints before it to reject viability as the primary motivating factor, as they consider their ruling on Dobbs. Only five Justices are needed to find that science and facts trump stare decisis, and the Supreme Court cannot hope to ever again hold any semblance of institutional integrity, if it persists in its denial of the humanity of the UnBorn Child.
During his testimony on May 17th 2012, Dr. Anthony Levatino told the House Judiciary Committee reviewing the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) about saving a woman’s life by “terminating her pregnancy” through a Cesarean section, that saved her life and allowed her and her baby to thrive afterwards. He noted that during his time at Albany Medical Center, he performed hundreds of similar procedures, and in all those cases, he didn’t have to kill one single UnBorn Child.
The Leftist pro-death camp can tout Baby Murder as being in the interest of women’s health all they wish, but the facts and their own contradictions belie their assertions. Most pro-abortion state laws, such as one finds in New York and Virginia, allow non-physicians to perform abortions, as they dismiss research that reveals the physical and psychological damage women incur from abortions. They refuse to inform women about the risks associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of adoption. These death cultists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of “choice”.
The Baby Murderers and the advocates of the Democratic Party’s Death Cult are hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are liberal enough to betray traditional America once more and vote with Leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Steven Breyer to keep America’s fundamental transformation on track, especially since Roberts has difficulty in doing anything that moves America too fast, even when the best path right in front of him is the most righteous path. But, it’s also worth recalling Roberts once wrote that, “We cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right”, in connection to the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Roe’s constitutional basis is already being questioned by several Justices who take exception with the all encompassing privacy penumbra seen in Roe. Kavanaugh, ever ready to follow wherever Roberts goes, is also on the record in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) that any precedent “grievously or egregiously wrong” must not be maintained by the Court.
In April 2020, as he agreed with the Court’s majority ruling, Kavanaugh wrote:
“The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents.”
Justice Clarence Thomas is the only Justice who has made no secret about his conviction that both Roe v. Wade and Casey should be overturned. It remains to be seen how many of his colleagues will join him in his honorable and righteous stand.
Most of America would welcome the reversal of the pro-abortion 1973 Supreme Court ruling that arbitrarily passed out a “right” to abortion for all women that wasn’t under its authority to grant, but the Far Left in the shadows of the halls of Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party Communists are already crying bloody-murder from the steps of the Supreme Court over their perception of an attack on their cherished “long standing” legal precedent. However, they are quick to dismiss the two centuries of pro-life attitudes in America prior to Roe v. Wade, and since 1973, they have influenced an era in which over sixty-two million Baby Murders (abortions) were rationalized and sanctioned through Leftist, activist courts and under a cloak of protection of “the law.”
Life is sacred and begins at conception, therefore the ethical question cannot logically reconcile the evil of an abortion of an “unwanted” pregnancy with the Hippocratic Oath of medical doctors or, more importantly, God’s Law. And yet, many who call themselves “pro-choice” oppose proposed rules that would show a woman an ultrasound of her UnBorn Child before a planned abortion; they oppose a 48 hour waiting period for this procedure. These pro-death advocates do not want parents of an underage girl notified before an abortion, and they argue that an embryo is not a person. Rather than pro-choice, these evil folks are pro-death.
This is the issue nationwide. Far too many Americans are not willing to acknowledge that sex between a man and a woman is a sacred matter ordained by God. They are not willing to admit that the product of such unions — a little vulnerable live baby — cannot and must not be taken away on a whim, due to the inconvenience it may cause them.
It is accurate to state that a newly created human being is human because it has its own very specific and unique DNA. Life begins at conception and any action that ends a human life is indisputably a homicide, no matter how funny, obtuse or disingenuous one attempts to be on the topic. UnBorn Children are not property or parasites to be discarded at will.