Posted on 04/24/2016 7:28:28 PM PDT by Morgana
At the University of North Georgia, some students put on a celebration recently. What were they celebrating? Abortion, of course. With cookies.
As UNG Students for Life reported, members of the Skeptics Society encouraged visitors to take fetus shaped cookies and give reasons why abortion should stay legal. Examples ranged from, “A woman controls her own body,” to, “My vagina is too pretty to let a fetus crawl out.” And then there was this:
****IMAGE ON LINK*****
It’s common to hear how “abortion rights” are protected in the Constitution. When confronted with that argument, it’s best to respond with a single question.
Where?
You’ll typically get a puzzled look, which shouldn’t be surprising. After all, even the Supreme Court struggled to find an answer.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to abortion. That’s interesting, because nowhere in the Constitution does the word “abortion” even appear. They got around this by claiming abortion falls under the “right of privacy.” Where’s that right spelled out? It isn’t. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe, and even he admitted “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.”
How do you go about finding rights that the Constitution makes no mention of? I’m gonna let Justice Blackmun explain that himself.
In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
So, cases about pornography, police search procedure, telephone wiretap use, foreign language instruction, private education, interracial marriage, birth control, and the distribution of religious materials all add up to a “right of privacy.” OK…and why is abortion part of it? I don’t know–Blackmun just insisted that it was.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Also mentioned was “the detriment” of being denied the chance to abort. Dr. Anthony Levatino has performed over 1200 abortions, and in the video below, he describes what’s done to fetuses in the second trimester. Watch it and decide how much detriment they experience.
After the amniotic fluid is removed, the abortionist uses a sopher clamp — a grasping instrument with rows of sharp “teeth” — to grasp and pull the baby’s arms and legs, tearing the limbs from the child’s body. The abortionist continues to grasp intestines, spine, heart, lungs, and any other limbs or body parts. The most difficult part of the procedure is usually finding, grasping and crushing the baby’s head. After removing pieces of the child’s skull, the abortionist uses a curette to scrape the uterus and remove the placenta and any remaining parts of the baby.
Not that children in the womb are the only ones for whom abortion has been detrimental: in case after case, child sex predators have used abortion to cover up their crimes and keep abusing their victims. Apparently Blackmun didn’t anticipate that.
This all helps to illustrate how important judicial appointments are, which is why pro-lifers should tell the presidential candidates it’s not something we’ll compromise on. While a right to abortion might be popular at the cookie table, you won’t find it in the Constitution. We need judges who are able to see that.
And yet the plain words of the 2nd Amendment are ignored...
The “right to privacy” trumps the right to life.
When it's "crawling out" it goes by the scientific term of "BABY". But let's not let humanity get in the way of her perfect brazilian wax job.
Look in the Penumbra of the Constitution. It’s “clearly” there.
Yes...murder is murder!
I have read the 14th Amendment several times and simply cannot find where they found a right to abortion in any of the wording!
Let me help you save some time. Abortion, or the right to privacy, are not in the Constitution. The closest thing to to a right to privacy is the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure, and basic substantive due process - laws can only intrude on you if they have a rational nexus to a legitimate government end. Not a high bar.
A constitutional right to abortion is a figment of some leftist’s imagination.
it’s right there in plain sight, right next ot the gay marriage protection clause s/
All the constitution ever was is a measure of how many good people decided to follow good ideas written on parchment at any one time. Look around, what is the measurement?
Freegards
If this is true then everyone has the right to kill another person that is inconvenient to them.
Seriously. How can they argue against it?
When the Founding States drafted the Bill of Rights (BoR) they decided that the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. The states initially obligated only the federal government to respect those rights.
So even if the Founding States had included an amendment in the BoR which expressly protects a woman’s so-called right to have an abortion, the states did not have to respect such a right.
It wasn’t until the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances, that the states obligated themselves to likewise respect the rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
In fact, despite the institutionally indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion Roe v. Wade activist justices who evidently wanted everybody to think that the drafters of the Constitution had “hidden” the fictitious constitutional right to have an abortion in the 9th Amendment, the justices applying this mythical right to the states via 14A, the justices wrongly ignored the following.
They ignored that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Section 1 of 14A did not add any new protections to the Constitution. Section 1 only strengthens rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, the PC right to have an abortion not among those rights.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified that 14A applies only those rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
And regardless that there has never been anything stopping the states from amending the Constitution to expressly protect having an abortion as a right, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such a right.
The bottom line is that pro-abortion factions must subvert 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty by continually fighting tooth and nail to make sure that there is always a majority of state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices to keep the PC “right” to have an abortion alive.
By the way …
If there’s any amendment that can be regarded an abortion rights amendment, as least politically, it is the 19th Amendment (19A) imo. That amendment effectively gave women the right to vote.
But what did women really gain by winning the right to vote? After all, not only are the plurality of clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers defense related, but one of the very few powers that the states have actually delegated to the feds to regulate an aspect of INTRAstate commerce is to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7).
So women fought for suffrage to have a voice in how the US Mail Service is run, right?
The bottom line is that corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification federal lawmakers have been exploiting 19A by winning votes from low-information women with the constitutionally indefensible campaign promise of federal funds to pay for abortions. Politicians are doing this regardless that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to appropriate taxes for funding abortions.
When has any part of your own body decided to crawl out of you? Your heart? Brain? Liver?
Never.
Anything crawling out isnt your body. Its another person.
Read the Ninth. Remember also that rights are not given by the Constitution, they are merely confirmed. To claim that a person does not have a right to privacy merely because the Framers did not specify such a right is falling into a liberal positivist mindset.
Liberal logic.
the Constitution guarantees the right to sodomy, dope and abortion, even though none of them are mentioned.
But does not grant an individual right to gun ownership, even though it is right there in amendment #2.
When did killing a baby in the womb become a matter of privacy??? And I believe they claimed they found the Right to Abortion in the 14th Amendment.
Abortion is murder.
I will only be happy when they designate liberalism as a brain disorder and make retroactive abortion legal.
The 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I strongly disagree with you. The ninth was put in place for two reasons: (1) to ensure that the enumerated rights in the constitution were not lost because a clever lawyer could argue absence, and (2) to remove the federal government from jurisdiction over unenumerated rights.
Roe v. Wade is a federal jurisdictional decision over something that is outside their jurisdiction. If the states wish to have a quilt of differing laws on the subject, they are completely entitled to it. But fedgov has no business enforcing an unenumerated "right" such as either abortion or homosexual "marriage".
One of the main arguments I have heard relies on an analogy to the Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Reasoning: if your house is off-limits to the government, that infers the right of privacy. Therefore, what is even more private than a dwelling? A woman’s body.
However, the problem comes in when one looks around to the states to find that the government already restricts what a woman can do with their bodies: except NV, prostitution is illegal. Also in most states it is illegal for a woman if pregnant to shoot heroin into their bodies.
So you don’t believe in natural law?
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.