The left will tell you with a straight face that the Constitution guarantees the right to abort children. Of course, this is absolutely absurd. No such right exists in the Constitution. On January 22nd, the 48th anniversary of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that created a right to abortion out of thin air, our pretend President maligned the Trump administration. Biden claimed that the Trump administration had relentlessly attacked reproductive health care. How did he do this? By nominating justices to the Supreme Court who believe in the Constitution.
Biden portrayed PDJT as being anti-women. He and VP Harris promised that they are “committed to codifying” the Roe decision and to “appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.”
Speaker Pelosi said,
“On this anniversary, we renew our commitment to build on the legacy of Roe v. Wade so that we can protect a woman’s right to choose and defend women’s hard-won freedoms, now and always.”
How does one build on abortion? What would the logical next step be? Is “culling the herd” next up on Pelosi’s list? Is Speaker Pelosi really referring to the legal right to kill children as a “hard-won freedom?” Hmm…I wonder what she was doing before making this asinine statement.
Let’s take a look at the points China Joe made.
“Codifying” Roe v Wade…Just what is Beijing Biden saying here? In simple English, Biden is calling for passage of laws that legalize capital punishment against an individual (the unborn child) who has done nothing wrong. These laws would make it legal to end a life because that life is inconvenient, that such a life comes at the wrong time or for no reason at all. The moral depravity of these people is stunning. Yet this is exactly what our pretend President is calling for.
There are those within the Democratic Party who want to extend this “right to capital punishment.” They are advocating that a mother could choose to end the life of a baby after birth if the mother so desired. Why do Democratic politicians have so little regard for human life? Perhaps it is because the unborn do not vote.
What about precedent? This is a foundational concept in jurisprudence. From it flows a structure within which situations can be adjudicated. Without it the same point of law could be litigated endlessly until a verdict is reached that corresponds to one’s ideological views.
All judges should respect precedent. Hopefully all judges appointed to the federal bench understand this. What is China Joe really saying when he uses words like “respect foundational precedents like Roe v Wade?”
Clearly Biden does not want anyone to ever again look at the Roe v Wade decision, that it should remain with the force of law in perpetuity. If you want to be appointed to the federal bench, you must swear an allegiance to support the killing of unborn children.
Is precedent in jurisprudence something that prohibits one from ever looking at a similar situation in court in the future? Are Supreme Court justices infallible in their decisions? The answer to both questions should be “No.”
While precedent is very important, perhaps a brief history of one Supreme Court decision can illustrate the fallacy of NEVER re-considering a decision.
In 1896 the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Plessy v Ferguson case. In essence this decision made it lawful to segregate the races as long as the facilities provided were equivalent. This came to be known as “separate but equal.” This was perhaps one of the most bone-headed decisions ever made by the Supreme Court.
Blacks and whites had mixed freely in the 1880’s. The Democrats, particularly in the South, started to pass laws (Jim Crow laws) that made it illegal for blacks to associate with whites in areas of public accommodation. The force of law was used to compel the segregation of the races. This included the schools that children attended. In a very real sense, the Democrats put blacks back onto the plantation. They were made into second class citizens by law.
The Plessy decision (7-1) “codified” segregation as the law of the land.
Only one justice dissented, Justice John Harlan. Harlan argued that the law under review in the case interfered with the personal liberty and freedom of movement of both African Americans and whites. Because it thus attempted to regulate the civil rights of citizens on the arbitrary basis of their race, the act was repugnant to the principle of legal equality underlying the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause.
Harlan wrote in his dissent,
“Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.”
If precedent is sacrosanct, how was it ever overturned?
In 1953 five cases were combined and advanced to the Supreme Court. Today they are collectively known as Brown v Board of Education.
The justices who first heard the case in 1953 were divided. Four supported overturning Plessy but five votes were needed. There were concerns about a divided court and the effect overturning Plessy would have on the country and on the concept of precedent. A couple of justices thought Congress should step in with legislation. In an unusual step the Court decided in June, 1953, to hear additional arguments later in the year. Then Chief Justice Vinson had a heart attack and died. Earl Warren took his place.
Warren recognized, as did many of the justices, that segregation was wrong. Warren convinced the Court that continued segregation in public schools was anathema to the idea of the country. However, there was still the concern of overturning precedent. They got around the precedent issue by showing studies (however flawed they might have been) that proved that separate was not equal.
Public relations material was prepared that indicated that the Plessy decision did not have access to such studies. Armed with new information, the Court said that the Brown decision (9-0) was really just further advancing the law based on this new data.
Thus was a bad decision overturned without turning precedent on its head. Some might argue that this was judicial activism. Maybe it was. Yet Plessy ignored the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Was that judicial activism? Plessy was a mistake by eight people in black robes. Plessy should have been decided differently. At some point it needed to be relegated to the dustbins of history. Because of Plessy we had 58 years of legal segregation, legal discrimination in this country. This was all after the Civil War had freed the slaves and after the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15thamendments.
How could the history of the “separate but equal” decision be applied to Roe v Wade?
Without doubt Roe v Wade (7-2) is another boneheaded decision from the Supreme Court. Future generations will look back on Roe v Wade just as we look back on Plessy today. What advanced society would ever sanction the killing of children?
The Roe v Wade decision has led to the destruction of more than 60 million children in this country. In some cities more unborn black children are killed in the womb than make it to birth. In fact, the most dangerous place for a black child in this country is in the womb.
Planned Parenthood (what a misnomer that is) has led the genocidal charge against blacks by locating their abortion centers near minority neighborhoods. Whereas blacks represent 13% of the population, abortion of black babies represent more than 30% of the abortions Planned Parenthood performs.
The Roe v Wade decision rested on a true lack of information about the status of the unborn child. Very little was known about fetal development in 1973. There were no ultrasounds or any other tool that allowed us to see the child within the womb.
The argument in 1973 was that the child was just an appendage, a clump of cells attached to the woman who was carrying it. This appendage could therefore be excised by the mother as one would excise any other growth within the body. This was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision. The idea of a child as a living person was invisible to the justices.
Today technology has provided us with so much more knowledge about the unborn. There is a developing child within the uterus. This is a separate life, a separate individual who should have the same rights as any other American in this country.
Pro-abortion activists try to limit any discussion to “a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.” No rational person would disagree with this idea. Each of us should have the ability to decide what happens to our body. However, this is just a misdirection, a smokescreen. The pro-abortion crowd want one to see only the woman in this discussion. They do not want there to be any discussion of the unborn child since this exposes the moral depravity of their position.
There are two bodies, two lives involved in a pregnancy. Each has its own needs and rights. The unborn child has a right to life. No woman should have the right to end that life. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, there are steps she and her partner can take to prevent this. Killing a child is not one of them.
If you have not seen “Unplanned,” you should. Unplanned forces us to look at the awful reality of something we might be tempted to minimize. This is the true story of Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director who was involved in upwards of 22,000 abortions. It’s not a political movie. It shows the reality of the abortion industry and the consequences involved.
Abortion says to a woman that you are not strong enough… that you will not be a good mother…that it is too hard…that it’s not the right time. This movie is pro-woman. It shows the dignity of every life involved, from the mother and father to the baby and to the abortion workers. There is a raw and honest truth in this movie.
Unplanned clearly depicts the fact that an unborn child is an individual, that he/she wants to live. I guarantee that you will never be able to unsee an unborn child fighting for its life as an abortionist tries to suck it out of the womb.
Polls show that more than 90% of the country does not believe in unlimited abortion. There are disagreements about where the line should be drawn. However, a line should be drawn somewhere that protects life. This will not happen with this administration. “Devout Catholic” Joe Biden will continue to support the murder of unborn children. When Beijing Biden is removed from office, VP Harris will be no better.
What is needed in this country today is someone who can put the focus on the lives that are being ended through this process. We need someone who will argue in court that we know much more today about the unborn than we did in 1973. Technology shows us that a human being is being erased when a life is snuffed out in the womb. We need to see the unborn child as a person with rights just like any of us. We need judges who see the absolute depravity of ending the life of the most vulnerable among us. I think we, as a country and a moral society, are slowing headed in this direction.
Based on the new information that technology has provided us, we can follow the example of Plessy and Brown v Board of Education. Just as Earl Warren did for ending segregation, we need someone on the Supreme Court who can forcefully argue the case for life for those who cannot speak for themselves.
How many more years will it be before killing a child will no longer be legal? I hope we do not have to go as long as Plessy was in effect. Is there someone on this Court who can meet the challenge of enunciating this? I fervently hope so. Many more lives of unborn children depend on that.
