Thursday, October 31, 2013

Roe v. Wade--Abuse Of Discretion

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Without any court presented factual evidence that would have been subject to cross examination, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in America.

That was 40 years ago.

During those 40 years, that decision has facilitated and legalized the killing of unwanted, unborn--or partially born babies.

No facts were presented.

No evidence was presented.

But the case was based, for the most part, on a single claim: "Abortion is safer than childbirth."

The legal and judicial decision was made on the unsubstantiated statement, "Abortion is safer than childbirth," made by pro-abortion advocates.

Now all the records from the decision, except those of Chief Justice Warren Burger, have been released to the public.

Clarke D. Forsyth, an expert in the field, has analyzed them and written about the stunning lack of evidence presented to the justices who legalized abortion on demand.

Forsyth has written a new book titled, "Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade."

And he has taken a close look at it.

He has found that in all the lower court hearings, which raised the question of constitutionality of laws against abortion and led to the Supreme Court hearing Roe v. Wade, "The parties did not present evidence---there were no trials---the judges did not look at evidence."

Forsyth has discovered, "The federal court hearings were conducted without examination of medical or other evidence and without hearing witnesses subjected to cross examination."

He concludes from the records that both district courts in Texas and Georgia simply decided the facts didn't matter.

How does he know that?

He has found that Georgia Attorney General Dorothy Beasley, who merely held two one-hour oral arguments on the case, which were mostly concerned with procedural questions, actually said so.

Beasley is on the record saying, "The facts don't matter."

And apparently they didn't.

Forsyth has also discovered that the claim that "abortion is safer than childbirth" was supported, not with any medical evidence, but by 9 medical articles or essays---one a letter to the editor, rather than any peer reviewed medical evidence or even an hypotheses.

We now know there are several verifiable specific medical issues linked to abortion.

For example, women who have had an abortion are at greater risk of having a pre-term or lower birth weight baby in pregnancies that follow an abortion.

There are issues of depression and substance abuse that have been directly linked to having an abortion. Suicide or an attempt to harm themselves has been linked to a woman having an abortion.

But at the heart of it all--The sanctity of life.

Does a woman have a right to kill an unborn baby because the pregnant is unwanted?

Does a society have a right to facilitate that action?

Is there not a moral case that looms over all the legal considerations?

Morality is at the heart of it all.

What does Forsyth see in the future regarding abortion?

He says there are currently 3 abortion cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court---Cline vs. Oklahoma, Coalition for Reproductive Justice, Horne vs. Isaacson and Pruitt vs. Nova Health Systems.

If the Court agrees to hear one of more of these 3 cases, Forsyth is certain it will be a very different hearing than that in 1973.

We hope and pray that American will awaken to the Truth regarding this matter.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.