Roe vs. Wade:
On January 22, 1973, a new generation of American women began celebrating their liberation. A mother’s womb suddenly became the most life-threatening place in America as Roe vs. Wade forced legalized abortion on the people of all 50 states. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, imperiously trampled the human rights of the most helpless of the land. By so dehumanizing the unborn, they stripped every mother of her Constitutional rights and the natural bond with her unborn child.
Roe vs. Wade in brief: The case was brought against the state of Texas challenging the Constitutionality of its criminal abortion laws. Texas law already permitted abortion to save a mother’s life. It simply did not distinguish between early or late-term abortion. The Roe court overturned Texas law claiming it was vague. They then went on to craft a solution with so many gray areas we now live under a government that protects the deliberate killing of innocent unborn babies, involving painful dismemberment, in the name of “a woman’s right to choose.” They led us to believe the Constitution gives us a right to personal privacy more valued than another human’s life.
The Roe court didn't even bother to define the act of abortion. Worst of all, it never acknowledged the fact that abortion involves a human being. That would have obligated them to show that the Constitution protects the act of killing another human being. This failure of Roe to make such a finding is regarded as the single greatest flaw in the 1973 Supreme Court analysis, and the worst human rights violation of our time.
Roe vs. Wade’s supporters are all around us, but you don’t hear them tout its legal merits. Legal scholars have deemed the landmark decision seriously flawed. The 1989 Supreme Court actually voted to overrule Roe. But Sandra Day O’Connor, one of the Justices in the Webster case challenging Roe at the time, folded under pressure and it was reaffirmed. Again in a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, 6 of the 9 judges were on record stating Roe lacked any valid Constitutional basis. Still it was reaffirmed by a 5-4 vote. The court rationalized it’s decision claiming it was more important to be consistent than to be legally correct (a legal doctrine referred to as stare decisis.) They went further, blaming the people, by explaining that Americans had come to rely upon abortion as intrinsic to their liberated lifestyle.
The Unborn in the USA can be legal heirs to million-dollar fortunes and have property listed in their names… and still be legally aborted for the most selfish reasons. Today, abortion is widely regarded as a matter of conscience, and the less informed you are about pre-born life, the less guilt you suffer. It’s fair to say that the authorities defending today’s abortion laws are either uninformed or have no conscience.
Back in 1973, the Roe court dodged the life issue claiming that if those trained in medicine couldn’t pinpoint when life begins, then it wasn’t their job to speculate. But speculate, they did. The Justices searched ancient customs, beliefs and superstitions about abortion. They studied the common law scholars living in the dark ages of medical science to shape their enlightened 20th century landmark decision. Common law scholars had used “quickening” (fetal movement) as a sign to legally determine the beginning of life. In some circles aborting a “quick” fetus was regarded the lesser offense of manslaughter, not murder.
The Roe court found its precedent in the pagan past, noting that ancient religion did not bar abortion. Even the long-standing Hippocratic Oath which clearly states that a doctor must pledge not to give a woman an abortive remedy, was no longer seen as the absolute standard in the eyes of this court. And since most early Greek thinkers commended abortion, at least prior to viability of the fetus, the judges latched on to “viability” as a national standard and legal limitation on abortion. Today, the U.S. is 1 of only 6 countries in the world allowing abortion prior to viability.
The ability of the fetus to survive on its own at 24 to 28 weeks was only a “best guess” at the time Roe was being decided, and various voices and opinions sought compromise. The court settled on the arbitrary birth stages of first, second and third trimesters as progressive legal time boundaries, with more caution to be taken for later-term abortions. These broad guidelines proved meaningless once profiteering abortion doctors realized that the decision to abort was now legally theirs, not the mother's.
It’s not a life, it’s a nuisance. Most people think Roe restricts abortion to the first trimester, with the decision to abort left to the woman’s doctor. But abortions are performed throughout the full nine months for a whole list of reasons which the mother and her doctor may agree to privately.
Is a woman’s “right to choose” clearly spelled out in Roe vs. Wade? You may be shocked to learn
Adding insult to the injury of Roe vs. Wade: At the same time it was deciding Roe the Supreme Court heard a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Doe decision redefined a mother’s health in the case of an abortion in the broadest terms, opening the door for the court to approve abortion-on-demand through all nine months, including partial-birth abortion. This cruel and painful procedure allows the doctor to destroy a fully developed infant at birth the moment all but its head is outside the mother. With no one to reign in their activism, the Justices had suddenly made the leap from abortion prior to viability, to legalized infanticide.
Privacy right trumps the right to Life: The Roe court admitted that the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. So they invented the Right of Personal Privacy which in effect allows you and your doctor to decide on an abortion for whatever reason. But the so-called right is not unqualified and remains subject to state regulation (at some point, the state interest as to health and medical standards, and prenatal life become dominant.) Also, the right to privacy does not relate to doing to one’s body what one pleases. There is no unlimited right. The right to privacy applies only to protect one’s fundamental or implicit personal rights, and is not absolute. Vague enough for you? In his dissenting statement, Justice Rehnquist said: “Privacy protected by the 4th amendment pertains to searches and seizures. It bears no relation to the privacy of a doctor and patient, or the privacy during an operation.”
Just what the doctor ordered: Human rights aren’t a government grant. They already belong to you by your very existence, regardless of race, gender, age or physical limitations. Roe vs. Wade not only took away the unborn’s inalienable right to a life, it granted the doctor performing the abortion protection under the same Constitution! Where has this license to kill taken us?
Where do we go from Roe? Our society and nation are built on the commitment to the ideal – that every human being has rights the government has no power to deny. All of us are created equal regardless of race, gender, age or physical limitations. It took only seven activist judges to replace that ideal with their own, Roe vs. Wade – arguably the worst human rights violation of our time. Since the 1973 Roe decision, U.S. women have exercised their “right to choose” over 57 million times, killing as many innocent human beings. Ironically, Roe obliges our government to protect the deliberate killing and painful dismemberment of aborted innocents. Powerful voices in today’s flourishing abortion industry and those involved in the sale and distribution of fetal body parts profit from legalized abortion. But their profits are being paid at the expense of everyone’s human rights.
The people involved: Norma McCorvey (“Roe” of Roe vs. Wade) was unmarried, pregnant and on the street. She wanted to get an abortion but couldn’t do it legally in Texas because her life wasn’t threatened by her pregnancy. Texas law permitted abortion to save a mother’s life, it simply did not distinguish between early or late-term abortion. Norma didn’t have the money to travel out of state to a legal jurisdiction. To garner more sympathy and gain public support she claimed she was raped. An ambitious young attorney, Sarah Weddington came to her aid, claiming the Texas laws were constitutionally vague, and they denied Norma the right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Weddington furthered her political goals by convincing Norma to sue on behalf of herself and all other women in her situation.