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.
This isn’t going to cause people to suddenly realize they must vote Dem to protect abortion when they otherwise would have stayed home. Ridiculous.
Maybe a soros plan. I smell rat.
Most legal scholars know that roe v. wade was wrongly decided. And, none of us have anything to do with overturning it. Unlike the effect of a groundswell of public opinion that moves a congress or a President to act rightly, Row v. Wade is a Constitutional mandate which will only be modified by the SCOTUS. And, God help us if some wise guy popping off on the subject is going to do anything more than motivate the other side to avoid two more SCOTUS picks by our President by electing a majority in the House or Senate..
SAY WHAT?
In case you haven’t noticed, there is a YUGE caravan headed to our border. It will dominate the news cycle.
Some abortion ruling in a lower court will not be the rallying cry to sweep Democrats to victory.
Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion. --Robert H. Bork
When I heard of Roe v. Wade in 1973, I was 17 and outraged. As a science-oriented Christian, I knew the decision was scientifically false and couldn't believe the judges were that stupid. I immediately wanted a Constitutional amendment to reverse that decision.
Later, I realized a mere Congressional law declaring life started at conception was sufficient.
In 1993 in my business law class, I read Roe v. Wade. It was the most illogical and foolishly written decision I read in my whole course. Again, I was stupified at the judges' stupidity.
I will welcome the end of abortion in our country. This ruling could easily delay that day by further motivating the other side.
Well, I still contend that while it is an important issue, and one that needs to be reversed, right now is just not the most opportune time to make it an issue on the front burner. You never know what might excite the base. Right now they do not seem that ignited. Probably because the lost the confirmation process, and they lost a lot of energy as a result. It’s going to be a long fight, and it needs to be fought at the Federal level. States can and a 2nd layer, but it really needs to be stopped at the Federal level.
Well, I still contend that while it is an important issue, and one that needs to be reversed, right now is just not the most opportune time to make it an issue on the front burner. You never know what might excite the base. Right now they do not seem that ignited. Probably because the lost the confirmation process, and they lost a lot of energy as a result. It’s going to be a long fight, and it needs to be fought at the Federal level. States can add a 2nd layer, but it really needs to be stopped at the Federal level.
From my profile:
Here is an essay I wrote in college in 1977 in response to Roe v. Wade.
The Final Solution to Overpopulation
Of course, abortion is the best form of birth control. Condoms break, you can forget to take the pill, and IUDs can pierce a woman’s uterus and scar and injure her. Spermicidal jellies and foams are messy and not likely to be used. Tubule ligation and vasectomies work only for those who are willing to make such a commitment, as does abstinence. Pregnancies caused by birth control mistakes are proverbial in our culture. The surest solution to the world’s greatest problem, that of overpopulation, is abortion. It is safe when done early in pregnancy, and 100% certain to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. However, abortion doesn’t go far enough in reducing population growth, and in reducing the population itself.
The world’s population has increased nearly three billion since the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade in 1973. World population under the best estimates will stabilize at eleven billion after 2050. The world’s ecosystem is already severely stressed with the six billion people on the earth. More needs to be done to reduce the population. What is the next step?
Roe v. Wade determined the first 23 weeks of pregnancy are eligible for abortion since the fetus is not yet viable. More recent court rulings have permitted abortions through the last trimester of pregnancy for the health of the mother, mental and physical. Using the principle of “viability” and the principle of what is best for the mental and physical health of humanity, the next logical step is to permit “postnatal abortions” (PNAs) on non-viable “postnatal fetuses” (PNFs).
Although the majority of PNFs are wanted, not a single PNF is viable. It cannot survive without an adult caregiver. Further, they are a mental and physical burden upon the caregiver and should not be permitted to live without the full and willing desire of the caregiver. Why should PNFs be permitted to burden our sorely taxed ecosystem by allowing unwanted ones to grow to full maturity? Is it not kinder, gentler, and more humane to safely terminate them should the caregiver find them a burden? Is not the caregiver fully within their privacy rights to manage this life form within their own home as they see fit?
There need be no moral qualms about this policy whatsoever. Our society has already established the legal morality of abortion up through the end of the third trimester. What difference should the simple process of parturition make to the morality of removing a non-viable life form from a possibly miserable existence? Just as abortion removes the burden of an unwanted fetus from society, so a PNA can terminate the mental and physical burden of an undesired PNF. A simple injection of potassium cyanide or a pill of the same can quickly and painlessly remove this ecological disaster waiting to happen.
The benefits of PNA’s cannot be exaggerated. They are safer than abortions in the third trimester. They alleviate a financial burden on the family and society in general, reserving resources for those individuals chosen to enter the human family. With a worldwide policy of PNAs, all individuals will be wanted. Without undesired PNFs, the negative influence of humanity upon the earth will decrease, not increase. Air and water pollution will begin to decrease. The welfare rolls will decrease, reducing the tax burden.
Yet, even a vigorous, worldwide program of PNAs, administrated under the auspices of the United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) does not go far enough. There are millions and billions of individuals worldwide who are no longer viable. Although they were human at one time, they are no longer self-supporting. Many can no longer communicate and are not conscious. They are all draining society’s resources and all require care of some other human being. Using the same moral principle as Roe v. Wade and other pro-abortion rulings, we may safely and ethically consider such entities as “post-human lives” (PHLs). In view of human-induced global warming and the possible worldwide catastrophe that is pending, is it not nobler to remove these life forms from existence than to permit them to continue to consume the world’s limited resources? Such an act of mercy would spare the functioning, productive humanity this unwanted burden, and more importantly, would reduce the space pressures humanity puts on endangered species worldwide. Concurrent with a program of PNAs there must be a worldwide program of “post-human abortions” (PHAs).
As good as PNAs would be, PHAs would be even better. PHLs consume far more resources than PNFs. All the benefits enumerated for PNAs would be multiply true for PHAs. Society would become free of all individuals who are not productive. Taxes could be reduced, or the freed up funds could go toward art, literature, and good public works. Cares and worries of old age would be a thing of the past. Once a person becomes a burden to anyone, they are simply considered a PHL and given a gentle PHA. The social security trust fund will become adequate and even generous, with a reduced future burden upon working humanity.
PNAs and PHLs have benefits even beyond these. They will give birth to a new age of medical research. There will be an unlimited supply of organs and stem cells for the benefit of the human population. Very likely, the human lifetime will be considerably extended. This will create additional population pressure, so PNAs and PHAs need to be executed and enforced ubiquitously.
How is a sweeping, worldwide program of PNAs and PHAs best to be administrated and implemented? It should start with the UN. As part of UN membership, every country should have laws that require every caregiver to sign a certificate of humanity to their offspring or to any non-viable entity in their care. At a minimum, these certificates should be renewed annually, like drivers’ licenses. Each country may add additional requirements for their definition of viable humanity. This allows each country to retain its own sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness. By entrusting such a critical definition to each federal government, we can be sure the same care and wisdom shown in governmental taxing and welfare programs will be applied toward this critical program of PNAs and PHAs.
It is expected that some countries will put political requirements into their definition of humanity, some will put religious requirements, some physical requirements, such as a certain height, weight, body build, or skin color. Aside from promoting cultural diversity, this mosaic of laws will catch PHL’s who travel from one country to another and further reduce world population. The varied laws will also purify the human gene pool, catching the ignorant and unwary, classifying them as PHLs and terminating them, protecting mother Earth from the corrosive effects of their former human existence.
Even such a beneficial program will surely have opposition. Religious extremists and radical anarchists are likely to resist blessing mankind with a healthier, less intrusive life upon this earth. A simple and effective method of dealing with such evil-minded beings is to classify them as PHLs and perform PHAs upon them. This action will quickly bring about worldwide consensus for this uniquely effective approach to population control.
With unwanted PNFs eliminated through PNAs, with burdensome PHLs removed through PHAs, with humanity’s genetic lines improved through the forced evolutionary selection of diverse laws worldwide, a new age will dawn. No longer will pollution wreck our planet’s rivers, lakes, and oceans. No longer will smog dominate cities. No longer will teeming millions suffer and starve. No longer will species die out through human encroachment upon their habitats. With the moral principles put forth in Roe v. Wade, logically extended and applied, humanity will joyfully march forward into a brave, new world.
Now's the perfect time to repeal Roe V Wade and send it to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
On December 8, 1941, President FDR could have said, "Now's the perfect time to destroy the Japanese Empire and send it to the dustbin of history where it belongs." Had he launched an all-out attack to do so on that day, he would have significantly delayed our victory in the war. The key is not just to do the right thing but to do the right thing at a time when the effort will lead to long-term success.
Starting the abortion fight in the Supreme Court just before the election is like Liz Warren announcing her "Cherokee" status just before the election - a distraction that reduces the odds of success. Better to keep the abortion lobby as indifferent as possible until After President Trump replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a more durable 6-3 majority.
“This is not a positive. We don’t need this sort of discussion right before the election, not when it is more likely to motivate those who like killing babies than it is to motivate normal people.”
______________________________________
Pollster1, there will never be a time this is a positive. There will always be an election pending, whether it’s in 3 weeks or another 2 years or 4 years hence.
The medical processes involved in the care of the Newborn and the Pre-born is elevated to such a degree that this is inevitable.
Be grateful it’s come at this time. The lives it saves may be your lineage in one way or the other.
We disagree. To me, the time is immediately after the 2020 election (preferably) or immediately after the 2024 election. Either way, we share the same goal. We just disagree on strategy.
Just sat down at the puter and read your essay in it’s entirety. I can see it read proudly at a future DNC convention.
And to think how many voters would read it and consider it a potentially decent idea. Some might want to consider all dissenters and conservatives as (PHLs).
Former Freeper Remedy wrote this for my website:
http://www.cpforlife.org/constitutional-remedies
A Matter of Life & Mass Murder
Ending “Legal Abortion” by Working Toward a Constitutional Remedy
The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal indicted and convicted ten Nazi leaders for “encouraging and compelling abortions,” an act which the Tribunal characterized as “a crime against humanity.” As with their other crimes against humanity, the Nazis protested that “we were just following orders.” Lieutenant General Richard Hildebrandt, the SS (Schutzstaffel) Chief of the RKFVD’s Race and Settlement Office in Berlin, stated that “Up to now nobody had the idea to see in this interruption of pregnancy a crime against humanity.”
- Nuremberg Military Tribunals,IV:1081-84. Nuremberg: NO-3512.
Untermensch, sub-human, or under-men was the dehumanizing label assigned to people regarded by the Nazis as so inferior that they were not human beings at all. It is worth noting that Nietzsche’s Overman, or super-human was to overcome the traditional ethicist and create a new morality, by the triumph of will over conscience. Thus spake Zarathustra
Nietzsche Nazis at their finest: “During the height of the killing season at Auchwitz living children were tossed directly into the fires of crematorium furnaces or flaming pits. Their screams could be heard throughout the camp compound....” The Abortion Holocaust
United States Code:
1 USC CHAPTER 1 - RULES OF CONSTRUCTION 01/06/03
Sec 8. ‘’Person’’, ‘’human being’’, ‘’child’’, and ‘’individual’’ as including born-alive infant.
1 USC Sec. 1
-STATUTE- In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise - the words ‘’person’’ and ‘’whoever’’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals Office of the Law Revision Counsel
With sincere and heartfelt appreciation to Professor Remedy.
Who masterfully produced this curriculum, and without whom this project would not be possible.
In the Washington, D.C. Wonderland of doublethink, a corporation can be equated with a human being, but a fetus cannot—and bloody Red Queens in black robes tell Alice: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This dreadful quote comes from Justice O’Conner and the majority in the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) opinion, which reaffirmed the primary lie of Roe v Wade (1973); that women have a basic constitutional right to abortion. Professor of Law, Michael Paulsen called Casey, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time.
See Wall Builders Resources: Evolution and the Law “A Death Struggle Between Two Civilizations”
Given the scientific, medical, theological, and philosophical arguments and facts in favor of terminating abortion on demand, why haven’t all Constitutional means been examined and exhausted in pursuit of Jefferson’s fundamental purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence?
Most people instinctively know that abortion is murder but some require varying levels of scientific proof to convince them of the humanity of the unborn. For others no amount of demonstrable proof matters and the only possible protection from them is a just government.
From Fetal Psychology: “Behaviorally speaking, there’s little difference between a newborn baby and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The abortion debate may never be the same.”
Grotesque news about the Nazis and abortion, but that’s consistent with national socialism. I wonder if Margaret Sanger supported them?
Nor is it worse than what’s done in abortion clinic in the US daily.
Regarding my essay, did the satire come through, or is there a chance people may think I’m advocating abortion? I tried to make it as extreme as possible.
The satire came through loud and clear to me. And I would think most normal people.
However there’s Peter Singer, Princeton bioethics professor, of all things, who’s respected by many on the left. He’d listen to your whole essay I’m guessing without much trouble and say it might be a little too advanced for this era, a bit too much to fast. He stated parents should have the option to abort several months after birth, seriously. And kill old or infirm people that are a burden. He’s still a highly regarded professor.
15+ years ago I heard Dr. Bernard Nathanson speak at a pro-life conference. He said bio engineers had already for years been actively working on creating two separate races. A blend of horse and human genes would produce the worker race. Huge muscular powers but only simian type brains. They would work as the servant race.
And the new master race, genetically designed with superior intellect and for the better things in life, whatever they deem that to be.
Just recently I read about neural implants with the idea of hooking computers up to brains. Much good can be achieved like for blindness deafness etc. but mankind’s fallen nature all but guarantees it will be used for less noble purposes.
It is a positive. I don’t care what’s pending. It needed to be said.
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.