Posted on 01/21/2016 12:48:17 PM PST by Morgana
A recent special edition of TIME Magazine headlined ‘The Supreme Court Decisions That Changed America’ makes a surprising admission for the world’s most-read newsweekly: “Like abolition in the 1850s or the war in Vietnam in the 1960s, Roe v. Wade divided the U.S. into two bitterly opposed camps.â€
This weekend’s March for Life reflects that reality, as hundreds of thousands demonstrate on behalf of pre-born lives despite winter storm conditions in Washington, DC (a storm already dubbed #SnowVWade on social media).
Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court decision, along with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, that legalized ending a pre-born baby’s life—for any reason, at any stage of development. For the past 43 years, Roe v. Wade has been the “law of the landâ€â€¦ as some of our congressmen have stated many times during recent hearings investigating Planned Parenthood.
The court’s decision has seemed impenetrable and unbreakable—until now. Several pro-life legal challenges are currently before the nation’s highest court.
Though it received little attention when filed at the Supreme Court, one legal petition makes the case against Roe v. Wade with concise and compelling logic. The petition is from the state of South Dakota: a concurrent resolution passed by the State Legislature and delivered to the Supreme Court this past fall.
The South Dakota resolution lists seven “assumed facts†of the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, assertions now disproven by evidence from social science, medicine and law:
1. Roe v. Wade assumed that “when life began†was undeterminable, that the child is not a distinct person. Today, the scientific view is that life begins at conception.
As to legal rights, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (in the 2008 opinion Planned Parenthood v. Rounds) recognized the life in the womb as a “whole, separate, unique, living human being.â€
2. Next, the maligned abortion decision assumed getting an abortion is merely a mother’s medical decision; in reality, it is “primarily a social question about her personal circumstances†states the South Dakota resolution which echoes many women’s stories.
3. The high court also assumed: surely the woman and abortion provider would have a normal and healthy doctor-patient relationship? Yet decades of experience with dehumanizing abortion practices reveal that no such relationship exists between abortionists and their clients.
4. The fourth assumed fact is that abortion consent would be informed and voluntary. While some states mandate abortion centers disclose all of the risks of the procedure, informed consent has been the exception rather than the rule.
The directors of one anti-trafficking ministry note that abortion and violence against pregnant women are linked, a trend also reflected in other nations’ coercive forced-abortion policies.
5. In Roe v. Wade, the court emphasized that motherhood was stressful and a burden. Whether a parent through one’s own pregnancy, adoption or foster care, no one can deny parenting involves sacrifice.
Yet the court failed to take into account the loss and emotional wounding following an abortion, which research shows many women struggle with for decades. Further, because every state has enacted Safe Haven laws, the long-term costs and sacrifices of parenting can be alleviated through adoption.
6. The sixth assumed fact is that a mother carried mere “potential.†However, medical science recognizes how a mother bonds with her child still in the womb, as noted by the world’s leading source of health care information.
7. Finally, Roe v. Wade assumed that abortion is a safe process. Four decades later, reams of medical evidence show that abortion carries both immediate and long-term health risks for women—including increased risk of suicidal thoughts and mental health issues.
The seven fallacies above are in no way comprehensive; one could point to other ways due process was thwarted in this case, as Clark Forsythe does in his book Abuse of Discretion based on 20 years of research.
“There was no factual record on abortion or its implications [presented in Roe v. Wade],†says Forsythe. “Neither the attorneys nor the justices had any factual record on which to rely to ask or answer basic questions, like the number of abortions, the medical implications, the risks, the legal history [or] the purpose of abortion laws.â€
Where this Supreme Court decision has brought our nation should break our hearts—resulting in the loss of more than 58 million innocent, defenseless lives.
It does mine. And it gives me continual resolve to advocate, pray and speak out for this unjust case to be overturned.
“the world’s most-read newsweekly”
Which, in the internet age, is like being
the best bagpipes player in East St. Louis.
I note that none of these fallacies address the rights and/or concerns of the father.
I hope you don’t mind me posting this article here but it seemed so appropo.
7 things you didn’t know about Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade
http://liveactionnews.org/7-things-didnt-know-jane-roe-roe-v-wade/
To me anything about Roe v Wade being or not being a lie is quite irrelevant.
Only one argument stands IMO. Abortion is murder. Period.
Now when Planned Parent Hood starts butchering the murdered, we have a Nazi style Holocaust. Betcha the number of murdered babies since Roe V Wade exceeds the number of people the Nazis exterminated in their death camps.
Thank you for referencing that article Morgana. As usual, please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
It is the Supreme Courts job to decide if an issue is constitutional or unconstitutional. But what pro-abortion activist justices wrongly ignored about what the Constitution indicates about the so-called right to have an abortion is this.
The states have never amended the Constitution to include the word abortion. And not only did the Founding States make the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitutions silence about things like abortion means that such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues, but it also means that the so-called PC right to have an abortion is not a constitutionally enumerated right as evidenced by the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
So the states have the 10th Amendment-protected power to make laws which limit or prohibit the constitutionally unenumerated ”right” to have an abortion imo, regardless what activist justices want low-information citizens to think about the issue.
The problem is that pro-abortion activist justices not only stole legislative powers to establish the so-called right to have an abortion from the bench, but they breached the Founding States division of state and federal government powers and stole unique state legislative powers to do so.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will be willing to not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Oops. Yes. That’s the one.
Hey I’m just glad people are posting more pro life articles! Keep posting just do a search so the mods don’t get their kinckers in a wad ;)
Irrelevant. More babies will be fed into the shredder. The deaths will continue. IF the salad munching God hating baby parts broker videos will not stop abortion, NOTHING will.
:)
Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court decision, along with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, that legalized ending a pre-born baby's life for any reason, at any stage of development. For the past 43 years, Roe v. Wade has been the "law of the land" as some of our congressmen have stated many times during recent hearings investigating Planned Parenthood.
To cede that kind of power to the court is to surrender our very form of government. Courts were never granted the power to make laws, and their opinions are not the law of the land. The Constitution, which just so happens to absolutely require equal protection for the right to life of every person, is the law of the land. Abortion is not legal, and as soon as you say that it is, you've sold the babies down the river. All of them.
The only really important fallacy of Roe that anyone needs to focus on is its fallacious claim that the "fetus," or child is not a person.
The truth is, it is a self-evident natural fact that they are a person. There is not even one tiny shadow of doubt that this is the physical reality. And our supreme law in this country absolutely requires that they be protected, in every jurisdiction.
"[I]f the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
-- Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
--Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.