Oh boy. First of all, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. Secondly, the constitution allowed slavery and slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a person.
You didn't read my statement. The Declaration of Independence framed the argument by which we based our claim to freedom from the crown. The argument was that we have rights, by God, and that no human authority can justly infringe upon them.
It was on the basis of that argument that slavery was abolished.
And it will be on that basis that abortion will be banned.
You wish to argue that human beings can determine the value of life. Did you think through where that premise leads?
Some of you wonder why the federal government should be making any laws or the appellate court having any jurisdiction on this issue in the first place, especially if you don’t believe in the “right to privacy” under the U.S. Constitution.
No can argue that there is an implied right to life for the individual under the constitution, especially if they argue for an implied right to privacy.
For both sides of the argument see: U.S. Const., 5th Amend. (”No person shall be held liable to answer for a capital . . . unless on a prsentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor be deprived of life . . . without the due process of law . . .”).
See also, as listed to relative import: 4th Amend. (”the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”); 1st Amend. (” . . . to make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”); and, U.S. Const. Preamble (”. . . to promote . . . the general Welfare, and to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves . . .”).
Moreover the right to life can be restricted; capital punishment being the most extreme restriction sanctioned by society, and all three branches of government; the legislative, the executive and the judiciary.
Additonally, few will argue that are not several bases upon which one can plausibly at least argue for an implied right to privacy (supra).
Thus, stare decisis will probably result in maintaining legitimacy of the right to privacy, leaving the issue of whether the Court further “chip” away at Roe v. Wade utilizing the following standards applied and dicta stated by the Court in today’s ruling:
*******************************
“We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State “may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.” [Casey at} 505 U. S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation’s “purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Id., at 878. On the other hand, “[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” Id., at 877. Casey, in short, struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar.”
***************************************
“Whatever one’s views concerning the Casey joint opinion, it is evident a premise central to its conclusion—that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life—would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals.”
***************************
In a powerfully moving statement of how individuals view partial birth abortion, using emotional imagery rarely seen in a judicial opinion, Justice Kennedy also wrote the following in today’s opinion:
“Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110-111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05-380, at 577; App. in No. 05-1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as
follows:
” ‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
” ‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
” ‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
” ‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’ “ H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).
This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
” ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .
” ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
” ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .
” ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ “ Ibid.
********************
Thus, I believe that the current composition of the Court, or perhaps with an addition of a strict constructionist replacing either one of the today’s four dissents, may decide in the future that:
1- A fetus has a “right to life” which triumphs over the mother’s right to privacy, absent an unreasonable danger to the life of the mother, with reasonableness being defined as greater risk of morbidity over and above typically experienced by a woman giving birth at that age; or,
2- A fetus, once viable, will have a “right to life,” which triumphs over the right to privacy, absent an unreasonable danger to the life of the mother, being defined as greater risk of morbidity over and above typically experienced by a woman giving birth at that age, .
I believe that the “health of the mother” will soon be discarded as being void for vagueness, or simply as being outweighed by the fetus’s right to life.
The advances in medical science will further act as an accelerant to this evolving position.
Moreove the Court cited to Casey for the following 3 concerns: