Facebook is Trying to Censor Us
Don't let Facebook determine what you are allowed to see. Subscribe to our newsletter to get notified via email whenever we release new articles. Click here to subscribe.
SCOTUS decision in 1973:
Roe V Wade: The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.
Justice William Rehnquist dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
14th amendment of the Constitution (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
The recently enacted Texas law making abortion after the fetus develops a heartbeat (approximately 6 weeks), has a unique presentation. Instead of the State’s law enforcement being the watchdogs of the implementation, this task is left to the citizens who would receive financial compensation for denouncing the lawbreakers.
This was a unique way to challenge the established Roe vs. Wade law. This law, even if you approve the result of it was flawed in its justification. Even the late SCOTUS brilliant liberal Justice Ginsburg said so.
Regardless ROE vs. Wade has stood every challenge made against it by the so-called Pro-Life movement. Planned Parenthood, which is heavily financed by the government and private institutions, was created to practice Eugenics, a form of “purifying humans by eliminating “inferior classes”.
Blacks were targeted via abortions, and now even after renouncing the past abhorrent practice and in the guise of “women’s health” the majority of abortions continued to be of future black lives.
In fact, there are more blacks aborted than the ones born. This racist act is never called as such by our anti-racist movements and falls in the category of the black lives that “don’t matter”.
SCOTUS opposite of MSM headlines did not judge the legality of the law. Planned Parenthood asked for an expedited ruling by SCOTUS which they denied because there was no precedent to make a judgment. They only sent the decision back to the lower courts to decide on its constitutionality. To wit:
But in a brief ruling issued on Wednesday, a majority of the Supreme Court’s justices disagreed. The ruling stated that abortion providers “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law,” but did not adequately address “complex and novel” procedural questions presented by the case. Additionally, the court did acknowledge, “This order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”
Obviously, I am in favor of women’s, like everyone’s, rights, health, and liberty. I resent and object to the idea that because I consider abortion on demand a crime that makes me against these important principles.
Why do I consider abortion on demand a crime?
Because I believe, as do many in my field, that life starts at conception and not at birth. No one disputes the notion that at conception all the factors necessary for life are present. If you, like I, agree on this premise you will also support the notion that the right of anyone to choose does not allow murder.
Another premise that I consider a false concept is the labeling of the right of women to stop the formation of another human life a health issue. I agree with the tough decision that has to be made when both the life of the mother and the newborn are threatened, and cases of rape and/or incest are present.
Personally, I agree with the view that consideration for aborting is justified. On the other hand, abortion on demand is, if health is to be considered, an impediment to well-being, both physically because even if rare there are complications, but mostly because of the psychological permanent damage that it causes.
On the more complex issue of abortion being a constitutional right, we would have to start with the Roe V Wade decision that interpreted the first item of the 14th amendment very, in my opinion, broadly to mean a right to privacy and abortion part of that right.
All these interpretations are deducted from a simple sentence that includes the word liberty, highlighted above, of that amendment that was originally intended to assure the full rights as citizens of the prior slaves.
Calling the latest ruling, a challenge to existing abortion law is not only premature but false. It only stops the “emergency” asked for decision and advises starting with lower courts as is the norm.
If our Supreme Court is compelled to make rulings by interpreting the Constitution using a political prism, the arbiter of our separation of powers will be no longer, and the country would be subjected to the dangers that either the congress or the executive could be the sole branch to dictate our destiny.
In the ambition of one political party, it is clear that their desire to federalize our election laws is in order to assure the victory of their candidates in the legislative and executive branches. If that happens, only SCOTUS would be in the way of a one-party rule Nation.
Misinterpreting the recent decision gives them ammo for their call to “pack” the Court and stop the Senate’s filibuster. That would be the end of our Country and our forefather’s dreams!