Posted on 10/20/2018 3:35:44 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
MONTGOMERY, Alabama, October 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Jessie Phillips v. State of Alabama that “the value of the life of an unborn child is no less than the value of the lives of other persons.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Parker boldly called on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“I urge the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider the Roe exception and to overrule this constitutional aberration,” wrote the Alabama Supreme Court judge, and recommended that the Court “return the power to the states to fully protect the most vulnerable among us.”
The case came before the Alabama Supreme Court when Jessie Phillips, a man convicted of murdering his wife and their pre-born child, appealed his conviction arguing that he shouldn’t receive the death penalty because his 6-8 week pre-born child should not be considered a person under Alabama law.
The Alabama legislature expressly enacted the “Brody Act” 12 years ago to protect pre-born babies. Under the Brody Act, the definition of a “person” includes “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.” The Brody Act is consistent with numerous other sections of Alabama law which recognize the equal status of the child in the womb. In his powerful concurring opinion, Justice Parker noted that the old law was changed “with the expressed intent of addressing just the sort of double-murder of which Phillips was convicted.”
The national significance of this case cannot be understated, since the question of personhood has been the lynchpin to the so-called right to abortion, ever since Justice Blackmun erroneously wrote in Roe v. Wade that children in the womb are not persons and therefore not entitled to any of the fundamental constitutional protections.
Responding directly to Roe’s flawed ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.”
Justice Parker, one of the court’s most vocal pro-lifers, wrote a separate concurring opinion specifically to emphasize how broadly and consistently the law and judicial decisions in Alabama and around the Country protect the rights of unborn children, and to contrast that with “the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade.”
In his pleadings, Mr. Phillips had argued that since his child was not viable when the murders were committed, he was guilty of only killing one person and therefore not eligible for the death penalty. Justice Parker categorically rejected this argument, stating that “Phillips's crimes were capital not because he killed a pregnant woman but because he killed two persons.” Justice Parker added that, to the extent Phillips was arguing that his unborn child was less of a person because the baby was young (6-8 weeks), Justice Parker dismissed that argument as “entirely unconvincing in light of the natural law, Alabama law, and this Court’s numerous recent decisions consistently recognizing that an unborn child is a human being from the earliest stage of development and thus possesses the same right to life as a born person.”
This is not the first time that the Alabama Supreme Court has recognized the personhood of the pre-born child.
In 2014, in the case of Ex Parte Hicks, Chief Justice Moore wrote that "Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states have an obligation to provide to unborn children at any stage of their development the same legal protection from injury and death they provide to persons already born.”
In the 2013 decision in Ankrom v. State of Alabama, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that pre-born children were persons under the chemical endangerment laws, explaining that “the decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law” the court added, “the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.”
With the recent appointments to the United States Supreme Court made by President Trump, many pro-lifers are hoping that the time has finally arrived for the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states like Alabama to protect the fundamental rights of pre-born children.
In today’s momentous ruling, Justice Parker echoes these sentiments and calls on the Supreme Court to act.
“It is my hope and prayer that the United States Supreme Court will take note of the crescendoing chorus of the laws of the states in which unborn children are given full legal protection and allow the states to recognize and defend the inalienable right to life possessed by every unborn child, even when that right must trump the ‘right’ of a woman to obtain an abortion,” he said.
Sign petition telling Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade here.
Gualberto Garcia Jones, Esq. is an attorney and the Policy Director of Personhood Alliance.
The fact of the matter is that Roe v. Wade is sh8t law. There is no “right” to kill another human in the United States, there is no “right” to kill your child in the United States and babies need protection from murderous parents. That said, we will not go backwards, abortion will be legal but heavily regulated. Morning after pill will be favored.
That’s not what Jewish law says, genius. At the first breath is when a person becomes human. It will be difficult to sell that personhood begins at conception. At the point of viability, yes.
60+ million babies murdered since 1973. What a morally bankrupt society we live in.
JoMa
The timing of this wasn’t an accident. It is somehow staged to motivate the crazies on the left.
Back during the 2008 election, I clipped an article (now lost) from a law blog that said that the unwritten “right of privacy” that Roe v. Wade discovered in the Constitution had been cited in over 350 SCOTUS rulings since — and there was no way that those rulings would be undone. That is why SCOTUS nominees refer to “precedent” when being questioned.
How can a correct court ruling in the matter of life not be a positive thing? Please share what you think would have been a better outcome?
This is not the time to raise this issue, in my opinion. Are they trying to throw the midterms to the Democrats by giving women an issue to motivate them to the voting booth?
Well then you miss that this is exactly how motivation is generated to get the opposition to the voting booth. You do this when you have the numbers, not when you are trying to secure them.
He could raise the point that it is a violation of "Equal Protection" for a man to face death for killing an unborn child, when mother has the right to kill the child with impunity. You can't have it both ways.
We don’t need the house or senate to have the Supreme Court over turn it...
The No Roy Moore Cabal will rise up, here, too, and do their best to destroy Parker.
“We don’t need the house or senate to have the Supreme Court over turn it..”
Right. But we do need the Senate to hold hearings on Trump’s SCOTUS nominees. I’m still not 100% comfortable with Gorsuch. And Kavanaugh has said it’s “settled law”. I’d be happier with one more Trump SCOTUS on the bench before this happens. (But that’s just me.)
Viability is not something that's fundamental in the life of a person. It's merely a measurement of the local medical technology. Notice that the point of viability is much different in a modern U.S. hospital than it is in a primitive grass hut in Kenya. (But someone born in a grass hut in Kenya is as much a human being as someone born in a modern U.S. hospital.)
The TIMING of this is INAUSPICIOUS!!
VERY BAD BEFORE MID-TERMS!
“That’s not what Jewish law says, genius.”
Really?
“At the first breath is when a person becomes human.”
If you are going to accuse me of being a genius, you should at least get your own posts correct. Perhaps, you should have written, “first breath is when a human life becomes a person.”
They could only be of the human species since the moment of fertilization, right?
“At the point of viability,” is always changing.
See this:
http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/when-does-life-begin-jewish-view
By:
Rabbi Goldie Milgram
Most often in Jewish sacred literature, a fetus in the womb is considered a human life “under construction.” The soul is usually described as arriving when the first breath of life is taken at birth. The primary Jewish imagery for the beginning of life comes from Genesis 1:2, where breath hovers above the waters of earth before life emerges from that cosmic womb. Then, in Genesis 2:7, after the body of Adam is fashioned from the clay of the earth, G*d is described as breathing life into him. These stories frame the basis for the Jewish view that the fetus gains full human rights and status only once the baby’s head has emerged from the birth canal [Ohalot 7:6].
There is one Talmudic passage in which a Greek philosopher presses a rabbi on this issue until–probably for the sake of peace with the Greek occupiers of the Land of Israel—the rabbi accedes to the prevailing view in Greek culture that the soul is present from conception. This concession did not, however, change the Jewish perspective that the activation of the fetus’s status as a human with full human rights still occurs upon birth.
The Designated Soul
The soul a baby will receive is traditionally understood to be pre-destined. The combining of the particular soul with the particular body it enters results in a human. An often-cited commentary relates that all the souls that will ever exist were “created during the six days of Creation, and were in the Garden of Eden, and all were present at the giving of the Torah [at Sinai].” [Tanhuma, Pekudei 3]. This perspective is reflected in Jeremiah 1:5: “I knew you, before I formed you in the belly, before you left the womb.” Or as sometimes friends or family are known to say to small children, “We knew you before you were even a twinkle in your parents’ eyes.” In the Talmud the distinction between body and soul is particularly clear in this passage: “When the time arrives for a person to depart from this world, G*d takes G*d’s portion back and leaves the portions contributed by the parents.” [T. Niddah 31a]
There are many terms for soul and soul qualities in Jewish sacred literature such as reasoning, curiosity, innovation, intuition, emotion and awe – all of which become possible once a child has been born. (To learn the five primary Hebrew terms for soul and more about each dimension of soul they represent, please see Meaning & Mitzvah by Rabbi Milgram, pages 26-29.)
The Torah confounds our senses by offering us an impossible paradox: that humans are created b’tzelem elohim, “in the image of G*d.” [Genesis 11:7]. G*d in Judaism has no image, that’s foundational. So what kind of koan or, spiritual brain puzzle is this? Rabbi Harold Schulweis, teaches a helpful midrash:
“The angels, having heard that God planned to create the human being in His image, grew jealous. What does mere mortal man have to deserve such a gift? The angels plotted to hide the image of God from the human being. One angel suggested that it be hid on the tallest mountain. Another suggested that it be sunk into the deep of the sea. But the shrewdest angel demurred. “Man,” he said, “is an adventurer. He will climb the highest mountain. He will plumb the deepest ocean. But if we want to hide it from him, let us hide the image in himself. It is the last place in the world that he will seek it.”
Another popular midrash also emphasizes this notion of not making it easy to uncover our connection to the Big Picture. This story also accords the fetus cognitive ability while in the womb. It goes like this: While the fetus is gestating, an angel is teaching it Torah, all of Torah. When the child is about to be born, the angel flicks the child just above the lip, causing everything that was learned to be forgotten. [Niddah 30b] Just enough residual memory remains for the human to experience the urge to seek, savor, and believe we can find and connect again to that sweet, deep learning in our lives.
At the burning bush Moses asks how to name the source of his realization that slavery does not have to be a forever thing, that he has the contacts and training to attempt redeeming the Israelites. The answer, described as coming from G*d, is: Ehyeh. “I Am Becoming.” Moses asks again, and the idea is then elaborated: ehyeh asher ehyeh, “I am becoming what I am becoming.” According to this exchange we are all very much created in the image of G*d. As parents, we foster the great unfolding of potential within creation by how we raise our children. We are part of the research and development team creating the future. In this way each human arrives in service of the Infinite Potential for Change inherent within creation. From this we experience joy, awe, challenge, and trembling before the awesome responsibility of becoming a parent.
“Viability” is a dangerous standard when carried to its logical conclusion.
Nice oxygen tank you have there. I’d be a shame if someone took it away from you...
A half dozen feminazis just had a cerebral hemmorage.
These are fundamental rights, too.
But they are not "equally" as fundamental as the right to life.
The reason why, is that the right to life is prior, both chronologically and logically.
The Declaration, which is foundational to the American political philosophy,. and in the light of which we interpret the Constitution, says the fundamental rights are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," -- and this is the only reasonable order, since one must have life before one has liberty (or any other right), and liberty in order to pursue happiness.
Likewise, if you take away the right to life, you don't just take away one right, but all rights at once.
"Personhood" is simply life, subsisting in a member of the human species.
To try to pry apart the status of "human" and the status of "person" --- to create two classes of human beings, one class with rights and the other class without --- was the product of the thoroughly reprehensible Dred Scott Decision. Let Roe vs Wade be tossed out on the same ash heap.
Anytime is a good time to oppose human sacrifice.
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.