When Roe v Wade was decided, it was highly questionable both on a constitutional level as well as on a moral basis. The basic religious objection stems from the Ten Commandments – Thou Shalt Not Kill. You had a lot of people arguing that a child is not a child until it is born and thus abortion is not a crime of murder. The reasoning was akin to the distinction of killing people on a wholesale basis which is deranged murder as distinguished by being a soldier who is ordered to kill by your head of state which makes it patriotic. Then you have people carving out exceptions to kill people calling it a Holy War somehow sanctioned by God or the execution of a prisoner sentenced to death. Then there is the argument of self-defense and a police officer who shoots to kill because he thought the guy was reaching for a gun instead of his wallet. There has always been a gray area when it comes to killing someone else.
I have to look at this question from a rule of law perspective and not one of personal preference or based upon a religious belief or lack thereof. Appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all women similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother. The other case being overruled is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on the right of abortion, crafting the undue burden standard for abortion.
What NEEDS to be stated is that the promoter of abortion was none other than Bill Gates’ father who was the head of Planned Parenthood which promoted abortions. Aside from the scandal about Planned Parenthood selling body parts from abortions, it has long been pointed out that 86% of Planned Parenthood abortion operations have been in minority areas. This has always led to the question was this really about Eugenics.
To sell the idea of abortions like the insurance industry that could not sell Death Insurance so they called it Life Insurance, abortion was marketed as a woman’s right issue avoiding any discussion of the life of the unborn. It was often alleged that this was Eugentics to reduce the black population. So while Whoopi Goldberg is screaming it’s her body and sees everything else as racist, has she actually taken the blue pill when it comes to abortion that was intended to racially impose Eugenics?
Indeed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg bluntly told the truth, when she was for equal rights for women. “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Ginsberg spoke bluntly in an interview published in the New York Times Magazine which was an article on women in the court. So it was not simply a woman’s rights agenda. That was the cover story to hide the real agenda which has always existed – eugenics and to reduce the population of the minorities. Consequently, there are what girls on our staff call Feminine Nazis for they just have taken the blue pill. Others will lash out at me and say this is a man taking a man’s view or that based on religion. They close their minds to the truth for they do not want to admit that they have been manipulated in their thinking.
SORRY! It’s time to take the Red Pill. Today, they are still very much more concerned about population growth but Bill Gates has carried on his father’s concerns about the population growth of the wrong kind of people. Bill Gates has experimented with implanting chips to turn off and on a woman’s ability to even have children. He devotes his money to carry out his father’s alleged prejudice.
People like Whoopi have taken the blue pill and spit out the very argument that Gates has pushed to reduce the population using women’s rights. Gates is tormented at night worrying about all the black babies being born in Africa where he claims the population will double by 2050. Gates has moved to provide free condoms in Africa. Gates was offering rewards for those to create a condom that men would use. Gates selected 11 contenders. In the USA, this effort to depopulate the world has been the marketing of abortion as a woman’s right because it’s her body. Can you also throw your baby out the window because it cries using the same theory it’s your baby? Hence, the debate conjures up religion and those in support of abortion seem to argue there is no God so just F–K off!
The question of abortion from ancient times varied. Under the Persian Empire, it was a criminal act. The Hippocratic Oath from Greece varied somewhat according to the particular translation. Nevertheless, it was unanimously clear:
“I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion,” or “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”
Abortion was practiced predominantly among the poor and slave class in Roman times. Abortion was considered amoral lacking any law forbidding it. Tertullian, the early Christian apologist, described how doctors of the time performed abortions using instruments that would effectively chop up a child in the womb dissecting it. A woman could be prosecuted for having an abortion if she failed to tell the father since the right of an heir was critical in property inheritance.
When Roe v Wade was announced, there was deep concern over the logic of the decision. It was based on an earlier decision Griswald v Connecticut which established the Right to Privacy. That was a law that married people would not use birth control. How do you enforce such a law? Does a police officer have to inspect you before having sex? It was held that such a law could not be enforced and there was the right to privacy. Therefore, Roe v Wade has rooted in that principle aside from if you agree or disagree with the subject of abortion. It is indeed inconsistent as a matter of law that you can mandate vaccines but uphold Roe v Wade and the Right to Privacy. It is entirely two different things to carry out an abortion by a doctor on the theory that the woman has a Right to Privacy.
Clearly, in this era of mandatory vaccines, you are fired if you refuse and cannot travel without one which is in direct opposition to Roe v Wade. The two are completely inconsistent. Honestly, this is becoming so messed up that it is hard to keep track of all the twists and turns. Logic has completely vanished today. I would argue if the court approves the vaccine mandate to protect society then there can be no Right to Privacy concerning your body. I previously argued that in light of Roe v Wade, then vaccine mandates would be also unconstitutional. The court appears to overrule this decision yet leave the Griswold Right to Privacy intact.
This leaked decision was clearly by someone trying to create a controversy to force the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v Wade. Ironically, it will now force the Supreme Court to maintain that position. The draft reads:
Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his- tory and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Overruling Roe v Wade -initial-draft
Roe v Wade being overturned would simply remove the Constitutional Right to kill your unborn child. This will not prohibit abortions, but it will send it to the states allowing them to pass their own legislation. Some states have adopted legislation to govern the “right to die” which is the idea that a person has the right to end their life or be voluntarily euthanized. Eight states have enacted that legislation.
In Texas, once a heartbeat is detected, abortions would be illegal. In Florida, Governor DeSantis’ law, restricts abortion after 15 weeks – when babies are scientifically proven to be able to smile, yawn, feel pain and respond to their mother’s voice.
One email that came in asked:
“if this is about states’ rights then it seems that this upends voting or gay marriage or everything built on the 14th amendment. Is this what splits hastens the fall of the US and perhaps causes it to split as most of the country appears to want to overturn women’s right to their own body and not consequence to the sperm source or circumstances.
Rape is again legal it seems in this instance”
Legally, gay rights and the rape of a woman or an abortion to save the life of a woman are not impacted by overruling Roe v Wade. From a legal perspective, Roe v Wade is bad law. It is inconsistent and in fact when you have mandatory vaccines and mandatory masks and quarantines, then clearly there is no such thing as a Right of Privacy. So for this reason as a matter of law, Roe v Wade should be overruled.
That does NOT mean that all abortions would be outlawed. Let the states legislate the question as they do for just about everything else. While the United States may be one country overall, the cultural differences between California and the Midwest and South are completely different. If someone wants to die because of a disease, they can go to Oregon. If someone wants to have a totally unrestricted abortion, go to California. It is time that there should be fewer mandates from Washington and more states’ rights. We also have the right to live in a culture that meets our personal beliefs. What if those in Washington suddenly approved ancient law and stoned to death those who committed adultery? Would it be even moral to force the entire country to comply with that law even if it offends your personal religion?
What will break up the country is the attempt by either side to impose their view as mandatory upon the whole nation. There are cultural differences throughout the United States. Even people have sent in emails saying that vaccines and who you voted for are just two common issues that arise today in dating. This is reflecting the deep divide and if we DO NOT respect these differences, then the only resolution will be civil war. The very term, “United States”, is not a justification to impose one political belief upon the whole. This is what is wrong with socialism under the Biden Administration punishing some for the benefit of others.
Slavery was an issue that one human being cannot own another. There are those who equate abortion to that same logic – a mother has no right to terminate a child’s life for convenience. Hence Pro-Life argues it is the same principle to be against abortion as it is to be against slavery. These are philosophical questions that are also rooted in culture just as the Persians regarded it to be a crime if a woman had an abortion and the Romans were indifferent.
This is why States’ Rights are critical and federalism must be curtailed to save the United States. You can get grits in the south just as you can get Boston Cream Pie or clam chowder in Boston. There are cultural differences and we better respect that or there is no reason to be part of a UNION. If California allows wholesale abortions and Texas does not, then both must respect the culture of the other and let God sort things out.
Personally, my first son died shortly after birth. To this day, I will never forget that. So while personally, I would never agree to an abortion, my opinion is not sufficient grounds to force others to comply with my beliefs. This is a State’s Right Issue and it is time we begin to respect the fact that there was never to be a dictatorship of the majority over the minority creating an eternal battle to force the opposition to live by their rules. That is the recipe for the decline and fall of every empire, nation, or city-state.
The post Overruling Roe v Wade – To Be or Not To Be first appeared on Armstrong Economics.