On Overruling Roe

Robert Bork's rationale, eloquently expressed in his "Slouching Toward Gamora" was a masterpiece! IMHO, no rational argument can be made against the unique humanity of an unborn child!

Roe vs Wade actually has very little to do with abortion. If it is over-turned tomorrow, it won't make abortion illegal in any state tomorrow. Since abortion is clearly not discussed in the Constitution, all overturning R v W will do is return the right and responsibility to legislate abortion to the individual states where it always was prior to R v W!!! If it is over-turned, a handful of states will make abortion illegal in all cases. A handful of states will make abortion legal for 9+ months with no exceptions. The strong majority of states will allow some abortions and outlaw others. And any woman that wants an abortion in the first trimester will probably be within 100 miles of a neighboring state where abortion will be legal in those cases. As pro-life people, our battles are just begun the day R v W is overturned. However, at least the playing field will finally be a lot more equitable!!!!!

I submit to you that this article is attempting to demonstrate that transferring abortion law jurisdiction from federal court to the states makes no more sense than leaving slavery laws up to each state to decide. An overturn of Roe v. Wade could come in the form of a recognition that an unborn child is a person, not just a blob of cells. All abortion laws to date have been based upon the foolish predicate that a fetus cannot be considered to be a “person” as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution, so the fetus has virtually no rights, including no constitutional right to have their life not taken away, without due process of law. There is a distinct possibility that a majority of this US Supreme Court will reverse this predicate, and find that a fetus DOES qualify for person status, in which case she/he cannot be killed, without due process of law. Due process of law would require the mother to prove that her right not to carry a fetus to full term (whereafter she could give up the child for adoption) outweighs the right of the fetus to live. This is the “normal” and familiar balancing test in all constitutional rights cases. The right not to be arbitrarily killed will nearly always be found to outweigh the mother’s right not to carry a fetus to full term. The one common exception would be a danger to the life of the mother. In pre-Civil War America, slavery could only survive a Constitutional test because the US Supreme Court refused to recognize slaves as persons under the US Constitution. After slaves were finally recognized as persons under the US Constitution, states could no longer enact their own slavery laws. IMHO, a Roe overturn could possibly include outlawing ALL abortions (with only very narrow exceptions like danger to the life of the mother) by simply recognizing that a fetus is a person. IMHO, allowing individual states to enact laws to kill or not kill fetuses is a sad and impotent resolution.

Three choices: 1. Allow physicians to murder unborn humans at any time if the mother so requests. 2. Give the government and/or other persons the power and authority to force every woman to carry every pregnancy to term, with legal punishments for anyone procuring or performing or self-performing or assisting in procuring or performing an abortion. 3. Create rules/laws like Roe v Wade that pick a position between the 1. and 2. by allowing abortion in some circumstances or during some stages of pregnancy and restricting or prohibiting abortion in other circumstances or during other stages of pregnancy.

Abortion is legalized infanticide currently. Think about it. It was ruled so that these horny men and women could escape years of child payments and their version of hell to satisfy their desires with no penalty. Think how many murderers are in this country that escape the charge.

Regardless of where one positions oneself on the issue of legalized abortion, this article makes it crystal clear that, as far as THE SCIENCE is concerned, a fetus is an independent, autonomous, living human being. It is not, and never was a "part" of the mother, like a kidney or an eyeball, whose biological role is to house the fetus in a supporting environment. That eliminates the facile and erroneous claim of "my body, my decision." The only rationale justifying abortion is that of convenience. Clearly, the most strident supporters of abortion recognize this. but let us never fall prey to the lie that abortion has any grounding in science or morality any longer. If you support unfettered abortions rights, you do so outside either morality or science, so at least some honesty in this area is sorely needed. When once one begins to believe that a fetus is not quite "fully human," one places herself in the same camp as the supporters of slavery, the Holocaust, pogroms, not to mention the Hutus and Tutsis of the not-so-distant past. Such a one must recognize that she stands in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. Either reject that position entirely or own it; there is not middle ground.

Roe v. Wade is the apex of special-rules-for-special-people jurisprudence. "Special people" being anyone who will sell their soul and vote Democrat. In the case of Roe -- women who thing that the human life they created is akin to a tumor. It was followed by the Gay Mandate. The "Constitutional" axiom -- created from whole cloth -- that an aberrant sexual practice merited Constitutional protection akin to that afforded Free Speech. The Author is right. The abolition of Roe should not simply create a vacuum for State action. The author approaches it from a morality versus legality jurisprudence. He misses the very much on point Constitutional doctrine of Equal Protection. An unborn child is no less entitled to not be murdered that any other human.