Posted on 08/24/2024 6:22:10 AM PDT by TBP
It is absolutely astounding to me that suddenly so many people have forgotten why Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional from the start.
The federal government, state governments and local governments NEVER had the authority to deny anyone the inherent right to live without due process and equal protections under the law. THAT is why Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional. Abortion is NOT a "right" for any government in any capacity to grant.
Understand this. Life is a natural right, inherent by the creator and protected by every founding document in our country. As an American, I am a HUGE supporter of state's rights. However, abortion has NEVER been and NEVER will be a state's rights issue. The 10th ammendment turns any notion of such idiocy on its head. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The 14th Amendment EXPLICITLY prohibits states from denying anyone the right to live without due process and equal protection under the law. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How many unborn babies have you seen get their day in court? They have the right to live and neither you nor your favorite politician can legally or morally take it away from them.
For the record, there was a 14% increase in abortions in the fiscal year following the overturning of Roe. Abortion should never have been given to the states to decide. The states have already made laws regarding murder, they don’t get to make penalty exemptions for those who murder the most vulnerable amongst us. Abortion is illegal, unconstitutional and immoral and I will fight every single day for my state to challenge it in court.
I am a fervent Tenth Amendment person -- I bow to no one in my support of the Tenth (or the Ninth.) But between Amendments 5 and 14, there is no doubt that any allowance of abortion is blatantly unconstitutional (not to mention completely immoral.)
Perhaps this is why they argue so about whether the “clump of cells” is a living human. That and possibly to absolve themselves of evil. I dunno.
Because the judiciary was granted NO authority to create rights. Harry Blackmun even said in his memoirs that he just wanted to make abortion legal.
That’s not law.
Roe had nothing to do with abortion, per se.
It assigned a right to privacy that did not exist.
If people understood that, arguing against it would be easier.
It was unconstitutional because the SCOTUS made a law from the bench.
And the wienies in the legislative branch sat back and let the judicial branch usurp a power only vested to them by the constitution.
Not surprising since ten years earlier the legislative branch let the executive usurp the power to declare war with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
The legislative branch has become WORTHLESS.
Real power is NO longer directly transferred at elections.
It is transferred at the confirmation hearings in the senate.
So-called Democracy doesn’t get any more down and dirty than the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
It understandable why the Marxists want to “pack” the court.
The Right to Life is enshrined in the document that gives We The People the right to form a government (2 so far) The Declaration Of Independence.
That is also a good reason why it’s unconstitutional. But the God-given right to life is the reason it would have been unconstitutional even if SCOTUS had the authority to make law.
Of course, it was unconstitutional as well as seriously sinful.
To think that a constitution could give a woman and a Dr. Kevin K. Killer a right to kill an innocent child is absurd.
Quotes of 1856 Texas law:
[page 6]
Of offenses against the persons of individuals
[page 7]
Of abortion:
ARTICLE 531. If any person shall designably administer to a pregnant woman, with her consent, any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence, or any means whatever, externally or internally applied, and shall thereby procure and abortion, he shall be punished, by confinement, in the Penitentary, not less than two, nor more than five years ; if it be done without her consent the punishment shall be doubled.
Art. 532. Any person who furnishes the means for procuring an abortion, knowing the purpose intended, is guilty as an accomplice.
https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/statutes_and_codes/Penal_Code.pdf#page=112
Quotes of current Texas law:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.
(a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual
....
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
Amendment XIV, Section 1
“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
It was recognized even in ancient times that elective abortion was a wrong and not part of proper medical practice.
“I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
It’s the Personhood question that’s causes trouble with that argument.
Is a fetus a person?
If yes, can I claim my un-born child on my taxes?
Is it child abuse if a mother smokes weed, crack, or fenty?
And don’t use “Judeo-Christian in your argument, Torah states unborn ain’t a person.
Don’t depend on a court.
Convince your fellow citizens.
That’s how you change law.
It was a bad decision enshrined for decades as truth and Constitutional. It took decades to reverse that absurdity.
To my mind, if PP et al want federal abortion legislation they’d better get ready for an Amendment for such because normal Federal Statute would likely be unconstitutional, IMO
Yes, but the ruling party mostly hates the creator and think the founding documents are old-fashioned without modern relevance, and which only belong in museums, not in courtrooms.
The Founding Fathers didn't put in anything about abortion and perverted "marriage" because it was so unthinkable in those days that they didn't think it was necessary.
Mostly, the latter.
Re the first part, point out to anyone who would listen (few) that a DNA comparison between mother and "clump of cells" would prove they are from separate human beings.
Not that they'll listen. Most pro-abortion people want to be a part of the in-crowd and does not want to be on the same side of an issue as the churches.
You can have that attitude about abortion and I can even agree with you, but if this issue isn’t handled with nuance and grace we will get slammed at the polls.
Better to make incremental progress than no progress at all. When we come off as heavy handed morons thumping bibles we get leaders like Hillary Clinton and more democrats in congress like AOC and terrible Supreme court justices. Be smart.
In a country operating under the rule of law, that is based on courts enforcing a written Constitution restraining the legislative branch, there is a certain minimum requirement the judicial branch when enforcing the Constitution against the legislature. The judicial branch must clearly identify the language in the written Constitution it finds operative and is enforcing, and then explain to the legislature the reasoning that connects that language to the particular decision it actually reaches. This both limits the judicial branch to the actual enforcement of the language of the written constitution, and permits the legislature and citizenry to understand how the Constitution has been enforced, so as to understand how it will be enforced in future cases.
Roe v. Wade failed to meet this very minimal requirement. Basing its decision on a “right of privacy” nowhere actually articulated in the Consitution, the operative sentence of that decision states: “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.”
This holding is (a) not actually rooted in any language of the constitution, (b) fails to adequately explain how the Court got from whatever it is in the Constitution it actually based its decision on to the actual decision, and (c) provided no real guidance to allow the citizenry to understand how the holding would be applied in the future.
Under our constitutional system, the general power of making law it vested in the legislature, but in Roe v. Wade the Court arrogated that power to itself without really explaining why the Constitution provided for this result.
There is nothing wrong with defending the lives of babies.
If angry old ladies are mad at President Trump for defending the lives of babies then maybe, just maybe, the problem is with the angry old ladies.
Excellent points.
Roe v. Wade was the worst decision SCOTUS ever made. The Dobbs decision was the second worst.
Instead of ruling that abortion should be left up to the states, they should have reinforced the 14th.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(see tagline)
If yes, can I claim my un-born child on my taxes? NO
Is it child abuse if a mother smokes weed, crack, or fenty? YES.
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.