Posted on 12/01/2021 5:45:43 AM PST by Kaslin
Today, Roe v. Wade is championed as a beacon of women’s rights, the foundation of the motto: “my body; my choice,” and the crux used to end an estimated 62 million potential human lives across the country. The landmark case was decided nearly fifty years ago finding a Texas state law banning abortions violated a woman’s privacy right in both seeking and obtaining an abortion. The rights of the fetus, however, were completely ignored in Roe’s ruling. The reasoning found in Roe was, and remains to this day, fatally flawed.
Roe v.Wade was decided on the proposition that within the ‘penumbras and emanations’ of the Constitution there exists a right to privacy. It is within this right the Court opined a woman can make the decision to abort her pregnancy. This, however, is a leap. It is a leap in logic and a leap over any competing rights of the fetus. The right to privacy, even a woman’s right to privacy, does not equate to a right to abortions. And, if you step outside the penumbras and into the light, there exists, self-evidently, the right to life. The right to life in nearly all circumstances trumps a person’s privacy rights. And, before Roe, this right even extended to the those in the womb.
Roe was, unfortunately, analyzed by looking through an incorrect lens, looking at the incorrect person, and looking at the incorrect right. With advances in science, we now know from the moment of fertilization, the fetus is not part of the mother; the fetus is simply inside the mother. The fetus’s independent DNA exists at the time of fertilization and from every moment, heartbeat, and developmental stage thereafter. It is not the case that the mother is dealing with a part of her own body. She is dealing with another person’s body inside her own. Thus, the fetus is not part of the mother’s body anymore than it is part of the father’s. This is where the Court in Roe errs.
Roe ignores entirely any right the fetus may have, focusing only on the privacy right of the mother. However, this is not a question of the mother’s rights because the mother is not at issue here. It is the fetus’s rights deserving of analysis and recognition. The abortion decision is not an issue of the mother’s privacy, but of the fetus’s life. This is, still, not to say the right to privacy does not exist. It does. But when balancing these rights, the right to life, not of privacy, is the clear winner.
Some states, recognizing the competing rights at issue, are once again challenging Roe’s federal precedent. For example, Texas’s Heartbeat law bans a physician from performing elective abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, typically around the six-week mark. This law was recently brought before the Supreme Court seeking an injunction in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. That injunction application was denied in a heated opinion. And, the court was right to do so. Further, a Mississippi law bans physicians from performing elective abortions after the fifteenth week. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case challenging this law, is scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court December 1, 2021. This case directly seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny. And, the Court should oblige by correcting the mistaken analysis grounding Roe v. Wade and its progeny by looking this time through the correct lens, looking at the correct person, and looking at the correct right, which is that of life, not of privacy
Overruling precedent is not something to be taken lightly. But, it can and sometimes should be done. We need only be reminded of Plessy v. Ferguson, when the Court ruled separate was equal; or of Buck v. Bell, when the Court ruled an 18 year old female could be sterilized against her wishes; or of Dred Scott v. Sandford, when the Court ruled African-Americans were not citizens.
Roe v. Wade is one of those cases ripe to be overruled. Simple as that. It has green-lighted the termination of sixty-two million pregnancies. One million lives every year since 1973. And what’s worse? These numbers are shrugged off with apathy. By treating potential life with such callous passivity, it is no wonder many view the unborn as disposable at the mere whim of the mother. This attitude degrades, belittles, and trivializes not only the power women possess to bring life, but the value of life itself. Thus, when cases like Dobbs and Whole Woman’s Health arrive before the Bench of the Supreme Court, hope remains that the Court will finally reverse the grievously erroneous precedent set by Roe.
As far back as 25 years ago (maybe longer), the Left had quit trying to defend the legal “reasoning” of the Roe decision. They were basically saying “we won, it’s precedent, deal with it.” That’s why liberals have tried so hard to define judicial conservatism as nothing but respect for precedent. They are dishonest and evil. Settled law is a lot like settled science.
That's what the Haitian guy on CBS Mornings said, "50 years of precedent " cannot be over turned. We had a "precedent" of slavery too.
Abortion not allowed if a heartbeat is detected.
Penalties are $10,000 all round
Mother, Doctor, Abortion Facility, Taxi driver on way to the Facility, and anyone else involved.....gas station providing fuel to transport mother to Abortion Facility.....etc
I read an article on the decision a number of years back and that it discussed how Roe was written mainly by one of the justices at the time and even then, it came under that great deal of criticism as very poorly written law. Are my recollections serving me properly in this instance?
Of all the words I would use to describe Roe v. Wade, “mistake” would be at the bottom.
we allowed two million ILLEGAL ALIENS into the country. Cut that back to 0 and Americans will take care of the one million children each year that deserve to live.
To get this country right, this must be fixed first.
With some hindsight its easy to see that the Neo-Feudalists ultimately intend on dictating who gets to live and for how long.
The first inscription on the Georgia Guidstones is"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature", the globalist elites are telegraphing their intended goals.
Men need to be able to enjoy unprotected sex without romance, commitment or fear of long term financial responsibility.
It's not a "potential" life, it's a human life, and it starts at the moment of fertilization, as she does point out later.
Also, viability should have nothing to do with when a fetus can be killed. A premature baby born in a neonatal unit of a modern hospital has a far greater chance of survival than a premature baby born in the middle of a blizzard in a remote location, even though both are equally human. Viability is simply the measure of local medical technology.
I've been saying this for decades, but this is the first time I remember seeing it picked up by any member of the press or anti-abortion politician.
Also, see my previous post about viability.
Also see my Tagline.
I think your recollection is pretty much correct. The decision relies heavily on the earlier Griswold decision, which was pulled out of thin air by Justice Douglas (a notorious slime ball). That decision has probably received at least as much scholarly attention as Roe, since it created the “right” on which Roe relies.
For this reason, we should avoid the "theory vs counter-theory" approach concerning the beginning of life. Instead, asserting the preciousness of life and the fact of no one can prove the moment our rights begin, the law should err on the side of protecting life especially at its most vulnerable stages when the individual cannot represent one's self.
Conservatives need to stop using the dehumanizing term “fetus”.
Words matter.
Conservatives need to use the term “baby” exclusively.
Only women, the mothers of the babies, are authorized to murder the babies between conception and birth.
"There is not the slightest doubt about that and we know that this information is written on a ribbon we call DNA."
"Nature has used the smallest possible language to carry the information from father to children, from mother to children, from generation to generation."
"As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were and are a human being.”
---- Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France, a physician and Doctor of Science and Professor of Genetics for 25 years.
This is, of course, good news that science supports the notion that life begins at conception which supports the assumption that our inalienable rights are granted at that same moment. However no scientific assertions or proofs are necessary to that assumption. Our endowed rights stands upon the self-evident truth that no power of the earth has the authority to access or abridge our God-given inalienable rights. Therefore Sotomayor's theory of when life begins or anyone's theory of when life begins is superfluous and irrelevant.
It is enough that life is universally perceived as precious and, because no one has the authority to assert when individual rights are endowed, the law must assume to err on the side of the protection of life especially at its most vulnerable stages.
Our rights are assumed truths, they are self evident, irrespective and independent of scientific discovery or proofs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being "anti-science". . .I totally agree that life begins at conception and I welcome any and all scientific affirmations that are supportive of that fact. However, our inalienable rights are not dependent upon scientific discoveries, they are assumed and self evident.
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.