Friday, March 12, 2021

Roe v Wade Targeted

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

ABC News is reporting that Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas "signed into law a legislation banning nearly all abortions in the state, a measure that supporters hope will force the US Supreme Court to revisit its landmark Roe v. Wade decision..."

Arkansas is one of at least 14 states where legislators have proposed outright abortion bans this year.

The effort from the radical left to save Roe and continue killing unwanted babies is significant.

Will 2021 be the year?

Be informed, not misled.

The movement for life.

Governor Hutchinson told ABC News he was signing the bill because of its "overwhelming legislative support and my sincere and long held pro-life convictions."

ABC worries that "Conservatives believe the court is more open to striking down the decision [Roe v Wade] following former President Donald Trump's appointments to the court."

Republican Sen. Jason Rapert, the bill's sponsor, says, "We must abolish abortion in this nation just as we abolished slavery in the 19th century---all lives matter."

ABC is quick to report that in a letter written by an attorney for the National Right To Life organization, the attorney said the chances of the bill leading to Roe being overturned were "very small and remote."

And ABC notes that the ACLU calls the ban "cruel and unconstitutional," saying, "Gov. Hutchinson: We'll see you in court."

Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said, "At a time when people need economic relief and basic safety precautions, dismantling abortion access is cruel, dangerous and blatantly unjust."

Saving babies' lives is cruel, dangerous, and blatantly unjust?

Both Alabama and South Carolina have passed similar life-saving legislation, but the legislation is still blocked by court challenges.

Could Roe v Wade be overturned?

One of Joe Biden's passions, by his own admission, is to see Roe v Wade be codified into law, which would effectively ensure it could not be overturned.

Unfortunately, last June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June Medical Services v Russo that a Louisiana law holding abortion clinics to the same standards as surgical centers were unconstitutional. 

However, some things have changed.

This past October, the New York Times seemed more than a little concerned when they published a feature explaining how "women's healthcare," aka abortion, would suffer if Roe v Wade is overturned.

"The almost certain confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has increased chances that Roe v Wade will be weakened or overturned," they said.

Barrett, as you know, was confirmed.

The Times then makes their case with a lot of data and maps showing how many women will be denied access to their "constitutional right to healthcare" due to the impact of clinics like Planned Parenthood being closed.

Thomas Jipping, a legal and judicial expert with Heritage Foundation, says Roe v Wade has become a kind of death star, traveling through our legal and cultural universe, destroying everything in its path."

"Never has a single decision, with so many flaws and such a grisly result, gained such dominance over so many," he says.

The judgment in Roe v Wade itself was tragic, although Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, actually gave birth. It is the opinion that continues to poison our social and legal culture.

Jipping explains that every Supreme Court decision has a judgment and an opinion. The judge decides the case, while the opinion explaining the judgment becomes a precedent affecting many other cases, involving many other issues, far into the future.

Our Founding Fathers designed a system of government in which the people are masters of government. They set the rules for government in a Constitution and those rules apply as much to courts as to legislatures.

In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court turned all that on its head.

Rather than conform its decision to the Constitution, the Supreme Court conformed the Constitution to the decision. This is why Roe v Wade's opinion is even worse than its judgment.

It means any 5 members of the Supreme Court can rewrite the Constitution to accomplish any objective or to advance any political agenda. The Constitution, however, cannot control the government, if the government controls the Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson warned that for the government to control the Constitution would make it "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

In other words, the Supreme Court would "substitute its own pleasure for the law of the land."

In the well known Dred Scott v Sanford case about slavery, Justice Benjamin Curtis could have been talking about Roe v Wade when he wrote that when "the theoretical opinions of individuals," rather than "fixed rules" control the Constitution, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied this matter carefully, and should Roe v Wade come before the Supreme Court, the ruling would have to do with the design of how the Court is supposed to function, not whether or not abortions are "constitutional."

We should ask ourselves these questions: Should the people or judges control the law of the land? Do we believe that judges must follow the Constitution or, when our own priorities are in play, judges can do some constitutional twisting and shaping to take the issue away from the people and their elected representatives?

This is why conservative Republicans insist that those who sit on the Supreme Court be constitutionalists or originalists, while far-left radicals insist the Constitution is a living document and it adapts to the current culture---and they adapt it.

I personally believe that should Roe v Wade come before the Supreme Court, the ruling would come from this issue, not the morality or immorality of abortion.

Does the Constitution say what it says, or do activist justices work to conform its meaning to their preconceived outcome and their progressive beliefs?

If the Constitution says what it says ---the originalist belief, then Roe v Wade will be overturned. If the activists should prevail that the Constitution is a "living" document, then Roe v Wade would be upheld.

Much more than abortion is at stake in this matter. Liberty itself hangs in the balance.

Pray for our country.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Resolute.