Roe vs. Wade:
How legal fiction became our reality.

   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.

     The state stubbornly rejects the theory that life begins at conception. Even if the parents believe the embryo is a life, the law insists it is not. Roe doesn’t accept modern science’s view that the child in utero is a complete, separate and unique human being with it's own DNA immediately after conception. The state regards the fetus as part of the mother. So in legal terms, abortion can’t be labeled a “killing”– It’s merely ripping out a body part. Formally, the Roe Justices argued that life does not begin until live birth.
Here are the stages of life still argued by people around the world:
1. Moment of conception (some say conception is a process over time.)
2. “Quickening,” or any movement showing life.
3. Viability (currently 24 to 28 weeks, or even less).
4. Childbirth (belief of many Jews and Protestants.)
Simply put: Most arguments hinge on the fetus being
a life vs. a potential life.

     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. The Roe justices provided reasons such as: The burden of additional offspring, psychological harm, mental and physical health being taxed by child care, distress of an unwanted child and bringing a child into an unstable family. By underscoring all the drawbacks, Roe takes the position that motherhood is distressing. The inherent rights and benefits of a joyful motherhood are ignored, and undermined.

     Is a woman’s “right to choose” clearly spelled out in Roe vs. Wade? You may be shocked to learn the Roe decision clearly states (VIII, 3rd paragraph) that the court does not agree "that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses." But the liberated American woman was smart enough to decipher Roe, realizing that it clearly gave the abortion doctor the right to choose for them. Any woman seeking an abortion simply has to share her burden privately with her doctor, who has the state’s permission to take the unborn’s life to “unburden” the mother. The Roe decision states that it has two separate and distinct, primary interests: 1. The health of the woman. 2. Protecting the potential life of the fetus. But politically, the abortion industry and feminist groups have been able to frame abortion as a cornerstone of women’s healthcare, with the infant’s life as a price worth paying.

     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.
     Ironically, Sandra Cano (“Doe” in the case) never believed in abortion, yet her name is the one listed in the class action suit. She claims that her attorney, Margie Haines, apparently tricked her into signing an abortion affidavit when Sandra was signing other documents to regain custody of her children.
     What was then uncertainty about when human life begins is now indisputable fact backed by a worldwide consensus of embryologists and scientists who can cite evidence on a molecular level. Definitive proof of life at conception should cause the Supreme Court to have second thoughts in future challenges to Roe vs. Wade , since its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, clearly stated that the court must consider any new information once it is available.

     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?
     In the state of New Jersey a doctor can kill a mother’s child without her consent for an abortion, and without being held legally accountable. On the other hand if the mother requests an abortion and the child is born alive against her will, the doctor is liable for damages. The doctor can only be sued if he fails to kill the child!
    And thanks to Roe, mothers are now being misrepresented in court. Abortion doctors and clinics are free to bring lawsuits defending their abortions by “representing” the women involved, without those women being parties to the lawsuit!
     Roe promises women liberation, when in fact abortion leaves her with a lifetime of guilt, shame, and the feeling of loss. It betrays every mother’s natural right to a loving relationship with her unborn child. These rights are protected by the Constitution, and by more recent law. For instance, a mother cannot commit to giving up her baby for adoption while still pregnant. Until a mother can see and hold her baby, she can’t fully appreciate what she is giving up. So, a mother cannot sign adoption papers giving away her child until after the child is born. If this reasoning has legal precedent and applies when giving up an unborn child to adoption, shouldn't it apply when giving up an unborn child to abortion?

     “It’s merely a blob of cells,” an abortion doctor will often tell a pregnant mother to ease her mind before proceeding with an abortion. More sensitive practitioners will refer to the unborn as a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst or a zygote. They are all easier words to kill than “baby.” But if a fetus can be a legal heir to a million-dollar fortune and have property listed in its name, why doesn’t the Constitution protect it from abortion? Technically, an Unborn in the USA is not considered a “person.” Once the concept of personhood is ever established, the fetus’ right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the pro-choice case for legalized abortion would collapse!

     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.
We must demand that the Supreme Court make a clear statement regarding the government’s duty to protect natural and unalienable rights of every human being to live. Failure to do so will mean others may be targeted for extinction: Infants. Elderly. Disabled. Disenfranchised. Poor.
     Pro-choice supporters and politicians must no longer be given a pass when confronted with new scientific evidence of life at conception, or the indefensible cruelty and pain of abortion. Those who claim that abortion has become too much a part of our daily lives only strengthen the case to end it. There are too many preferable, civilized alternatives. The laws are not so entrenched as some would suggest. Roe vs. Wade will be overturned.

     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.
     An abortion doctor, Dr. James Hallford, decided to join Roe’s cause, also claiming that Texas abortion laws were vague. Furthermore, the laws violated the privacy rights between him and his patients. Having been arrested earlier for violations of Texas abortion laws and with two other violations pending, Dr. Hallford claimed his right to practice medicine was being threatened. The Court ruled that McCorvey and Dr. Hallford had reason to sue, and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were vague, and therefore void on their face. Also, they were an infringement of Hallford’s Ninth Amendment rights, meaning that the laws governing the rights of his patient should not deny him his livelihood.
     While Roe was being resolved and legalized abortion was becoming the new law of the land, Norma McCorvey’s pregnancy terminated naturally, with no need for an abortion after all. But this did not moot her suit since pregnancy can be repeated, making it an exception to the federal rule that a controversy must exist at the review stage.
     Looking back, Norma McCorvey realizes that in her desperate state she was being used. She had become a legal pawn for the country’s thriving abortion industry, and a poster girl for the pro-choice movement. A repentant Norma travels the country speaking out against abortion and has written about her role in Roe vs. Wade in her book, Won By Love. In it she reveals how she was never raped, and regrets to say: “This means that the abortion case that destroyed every state law protecting the unborn was based on a lie.”

      Today, most Americans can’t name the seven justices responsible for the deaths of over 57 million Unborn in the USA. They are: Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall and Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Dissenting Justices were: William H. Rehnquist and Byron R. White.
     Rehnquist wrote: “The Court should never formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is applied.”…and: “A statute found to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not constitutional as a whole, is not simply ‘struck down’ but is declared unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case before the court.”

Want to read the original Roe v. Wade document? Click here: