The Supreme Court focusing on equity rather than justice is now about abusing and killing the innocent in their mothers’ wombs “lawfully” so that social and economic justice can be achieved for women.
The serious error in current abortion jurisprudence is the theory that women need to be freed from state laws protecting the unborn (Roe v. Wade) and from state laws that impose an “undue burden on a woman’s abortion right” (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
But a state’s prenatal protection laws are not a burden on a right but rather a duty to protect a right. Pro-life laws are a righteous affirmation of a natural law duty to protect innocent life from unjust execution.
An unreasonable guilt trip laid by the mother on an “unwanted” yet innocent daughter or son in her or his mother’s womb should never have been approved by any court.
Come Dec. 1, a more conservative Supreme Court must restore the integrity of its original constitutional mission to establish justice. It must renounce the ideologically fabricated equity that since Roe has facilitated the abortion of over 62 million American children in their mothers’ wombs.
Time to Reassess Roe and Casey’s Errors
Sensible Supreme Court justices must invalidate those distortions of the Constitution that emerged from radically experimental political reformations driven by pop-up ideologies that trashed constitutional values.
The same blessings of liberty for our posterity as for ourselves — that was the commitment made in the Constitution’s preamble.
Justice for “our Posterity” was destroyed in the sexual revolution — not reformed as claimed. Abortion wrongs were revamped as putative rights tottering on shaky and experimental moral and ethical tenets nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Do you think the Supreme Court will overturn Roe?
The difference between the American Revolution and the sexual revolution remains critical.
One established in the name of freedom the principles of natural law justice as the basis of the Constitution.
The other attempted in the name of freedom to elevate sexual and social decadence and self-centered immorality above our inherent duty to provide natural law protection for children both in utero and en famille.
A Decidedly Injudicious Agreement to Sacrifice the Innocent
Over the last 50 years, the Democrats’ radically socialist “reforms” have infected and motivated Supreme Court progressives’ decisions defending the killing of the unborn in their mothers’ wombs. They have led to the wantonly unjust crumbling of the Constitution’s foundational moral values.
Customarily, up until Roe v Wade at least, before any human being could be “lawfully” killed, the justice system zeroed in on making a decision on the guilt or innocence of that human being.
Infamously, once before, in the trial of one Jesus Christ, unjust legal authorities decided that the innocent must die for the good of the people. That departure from true justice has scandalized the world for nearly 2000 years.
Yet this error was repeated without reason or remorse in Roe v. Wade. Unwanted children must die for the good of their mothers.
Justice has been distorted by sacrificing the innocent.
And now the latest Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021, narrowly passed in the House, lifts all restrictions on abortion, claiming that restrictions harm the “equality of women, and their ability to participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.”
Aborting a Child’s Life: A Wrong That Can’t Be Righted
There are other ways to advance women’s rights than through destroying the rights of their children to go on living.
How can we possibly claim “a right to choose” to do grievous wrong to some human beings in order to do right by other human beings?
Abortion is a wrong for which compensation can never be made. Once a child’s life is destroyed, no court can ever bring it back or put it right.
Why has the Supreme Court made the killing of these children so easy, so routine, so private, so non-burdensome? Why has state protection for these smallest children in the womb become “an undue burden” on the mother’s right to have the child killed?
Fifth and Sixth Amendments Forbid Arbitrary Deprivation of Life
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declares that no one is to “be deprived of life … without due process of law.”
The Sixth Amendment also forbids injudicious killing.
Some American states are still struggling mightily with the right or wrong of inflicting the death penalty on even the worst adult criminals judged guilty following the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of “public trial, by an impartial jury.” Mistakes have been made despite extensive trials. Many on death row have been exonerated.
Regrettably, there is no right of appeal, no second chance for little innocents in the womb targeted for capital punishment by the multibillion-dollar abortion industry. The mothers of these little ones judged “guilty” of being unwanted don’t even have to give a reason. There is no requirement in the Women’s Health Protection Act to “disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services.”
For what Justice Harry Blackmun called “the unwanted child,” there is no trial, no jury, no weighing of guilt or innocence.
Children killed “privately” in abortion are never found guilty first. There has been no judge or jury — just the mother’s “choice.” A fair trial in court is not an option. Their killing is a “private” matter.
Why did the majority justices in Roe and Casey avoid even touching on the innocence of these smallest human beings targeted for abortion? Why were these innocents accorded no trial, dismissed as expendable and deemed not worthy of any defense at all?
Who Are Guilty When Women Are ‘Forced to Carry’ the Unwanted Child?
Pregnancy is a normal and natural biological process. Protected from being forced by an abortionist out of the safety of the mother’s womb, most little ones will follow a normal and natural (unforced) course to birth. No “force” or violence is required to continue the pregnancy.
We must ask: Just what unlawful activity did the unborn child engage in to deserve a death sentence at the abortionist’s hands?
Pregnancy is ideologically recast by radical feminists as an injustice, an unfair affliction, an offense against a woman’s freedom, an assault on her body, an obstacle to burden women and to deny them equity with men.
It is tragic that in the flux of the sexual revolution, Justice Blackmun gave misleading encouragement to the negative stereotyping of pregnancy as a terrible burden inflicted unfairly by a malevolent nature on women only.
Too many of us at that time were duped into inflating our own “women’s rights.” Blackmun was pleased to list the perceived detriments of pregnancy. It was implied wrongly that these detriments could be relieved only by aborting “the fetus.”
He listed none of the blessings that come with every child loved into being with the Creator’s “Yes!”
That was the tragedy — the grave injustice of Roe v. Wade.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.