Roe v. Wade—the Abortion Decision Forty Years Later

I am only posting about my eviction case today on http://christiangunslinger1.blogspot.com and http://christiangunslinger7.blogspot.com. Christian Gunslinger, 3, and 5 will follow their normal formats. Too much material that needs to be posted. 1 and 7 posts will be later this afternoon.


Since this is possibly my last post, I decided to use two articles dealing with Roe v. Wade—the most obscene, immoral, and unconstitutional decision in Supreme Court history. It was a decision that was a direct assault upon GOD and HIS HOLY WORD! And the decision has been catastrophic to the moral fiber of the United States.


From: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/28/its-past-time-for-the-supreme-court-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/

“It’s Past Time for the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

by Allan E. Parker
Washington, DC
LifeNews.com
12/28/12

The Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Doe are still deeply divisive and have not been accepted by a deep consensus of the American people because they allow the killing of millions of children in the womb. Because the issue is one of life and death, it will not go away until either the Supreme Court or the American people through a constitutional amendment get it right. Abortion is such a grave and immoral injustice, on such a massive scale, that it can never be accepted completely by the American people.

Every nomination to the Supreme Court becomes an intense, critical, national battle as each faction strives to get its champion appointed to the Court.

America’s failure to uniformly accept the legitimacy of abortion is further reflected in every presidential battle, including this last one in which abortion was a deeply contentious issue.

In 1992, the Supreme Court’s decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood was supposed to be the compromise that put the abortion controversy to rest once and for all. The Court tried to adopt a middle ground, yet two decades later, the controversy has not gone away. Casey has been called the worst constitutional decision of all times by some.

We call upon the U.S. Supreme Court to fix the problem that it created when it denied personhood to children in the womb in Roe and Doe. It took a civil war to reverse Dred Scott. It might take another civil war if Americans are forced to pay for abortions or are compelled to undergo abortions as in China.

While giving due respect to the institution of the Supreme Court, it does not always get right the question of ‘who is a human being entitled to equal protection under the law?’ In the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court held that slaves were property. The Court said,

‘The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.’

The Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions held that children can be killed in the womb because they are not persons. Roe and Doe are egregious mistakes by the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court should correct.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court made another mistake on equal human rights when it failed to give equal rights under law to African Americans who have been finally freed from Dred Scott’s slavery. This led to oppressive and unjust segregation. Just as the Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education corrected the problems it created in Plessy v. Ferguson, we urge the court to reverse Roe and Doe. In 1954, the Supreme Court reversed Plessy v. Ferguson and followed the actual language of the Constitution, correcting the segregation problem that the Court itself created in 1896 when it bowed to political pressure and held that separate but equal was equal.

If abortion were truly a right granted by the Constitution, like women’s right to vote, then it could not be changed by five judges of the Supreme Court. Roe and Doe can be corrected by five members of the Court and we urge them to do so in 2013.”

—

From: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/28/roe-vs-wade-the-remarkable-shelf-life-of-a-lie/

“Roe vs. Wade: The Remarkable Shelf Life of a Lie

by Steven Ertelt
Washington, DC
LifeNews.com
12/28/12

‘Truth matters. The entire edifice of U.S. abortion law is constructed on lies and deceptions—lies about when life begins, the scope of ‘privacy’ in the Constitution, the meaning of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, about applicable (but ignored) precedents, and, significantly, about the history of abortion law and practice.’—From ‘Refuting the Myths of Abortion History,’ by Susan Wills, Ph.D., which appeared in the January 2006 issue of National Right to Life News.

In just 27 days we will [I hate to use the word but …] commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a decision in which Justice Harry Blackmun channeled the zaniest arguments of the Abortion Lobby to foist upon us the catastrophe that is Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

For the last few weeks, each day I’ve been offering a least one reflection on Roe’s poisonous legacy. Today, NRL News Today will provide two.

‘Abortion History Myths: The Sequel’

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/12/abortion-history-myths-the-sequel/

was written by Susan Wills, one of my favorite pro-life contributors. It was the second of a two-part review of Joseph Dellapenna’s massive ‘Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History.’ If I may say so, Susan’s contributions are must-reading, as is Professor Dellapenna’s incredibly detailed history of abortion.

In this post, I’d like to say just a few words about Justin Dyer’s ‘Fictional Abortion History,’ which you can find at National Review’s webpage. Dyer, who teaches political science at the University of Missouri, uses two relatively new books which rely on the orthodox pro-abortion history written by New York Law school Professor Cyril Means. (Professor Dellapenna just eviscerates Means’s nonsense.)

Means, as Dyer notes, was counsel for the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), ‘who took the lead in drafting the new abortion history in the 1960s.’ That took the particular form of a 1968 article published in the New York Law Forum.

The gist of the ‘new abortion history’ is that abortion was ‘(1) a common-law liberty at the time of the American founding and (2) the primary purpose of anti-abortion laws in the 19th century was to protect women rather than the lives of unborn children.’ Neither was true, as most objective observers know.

I thought I knew the background pretty well—the role Means’ arguments made (Blackmun cited his work seven times in Roe). What I didn’t know until I read Dyer is that the team pushing to overturn the abortion laws, lead by Sarah Weddington, likely also knew that Means was grinding out propaganda, not accurately recording history. Dyer writes

‘The problem (as Weddington almost certainly knew) is that Means’s central claims were not true. In a memo circulated among Roe’s legal team in the summer of 1971, a Yale law student named David Tundermann warned that Means’s ‘conclusions sometimes strain credibility.’”

What really rocks you is what (as Dyer described it) ‘Tundermann tellingly concluded’:

‘Where the important thing to do is to win the case no matter how, however, I suppose I agree with Means’s technique: begin with a scholarly attempt at historical research; if it doesn’t work out, fudge it as necessary; write a piece so long that others will read only your introduction and conclusion; then keep citing it until the courts begin picking it up. This preserves the guise of impartial scholarship while advancing the proper ideological goals.’

Take the time to read Dyer’s post at www.nationalreview.com/articles/336398/fictional-abortion-history-justin-dyer. He does a great job of demonstrating how this bogus narrative has been carefully nurtured by scholars who should have—or could have—known better.’

Here is Dyer’s conclusion:

‘The suggestion—still made today by credentialed historians, legal scholars, and respected journalists—that protecting the lives of the unborn was not the purpose of the abortion statutes overturned by the Supreme Court in 1973 is absurd. Although the role of history in abortion litigation has quietly faded to the background in the Court’s most recent abortion cases, it bears noting that the politically motivated abortion history crudely constructed by activists and academics in the 1960s and 1970s has enjoyed a remarkable shelf life. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, as we debate the legacy of the decision and consider the state of abortion politics, it is time to lay to rest this fraudulent history—a history that would be far less tragic if it did not involve matters of life and death.’

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in his Natioanl Right to Life News Today.”

The abortion (MURDER) cases as well as many other Supreme Court decisions have two major constitutional flaws that made the decisions null and void.

1) The process used was clearly unconstitutional.

Article III, § 2, ¶ 2

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” (My use of red—my addition)

Why are the States disregarding the Constitution? We must get them to assert their constitutional rights. No lower federal court judge should ever be able to tell a State what to do as happened in California over Proposition 8, in Arizona in relation to its immigration law, and in Texas in the Roe case. Since the Supreme Court did not hear the case originally, the decision constitutionally must be null and void. The Constitution was not followed.

2) The federal courts have been systematically unconstitutionally misusing the Fourteen Amendment.

The Thirteenth – Fifteenth Amendments are the first instances where Congress by Amendment specifically removes the courts from the process. The example in the fourteenth amendment reads “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” [14th Amendment, §5, ¶ 1.]

Instead of Congress doing so, the courts have taken it upon themselves to apply the “due process/equal protection” clause to the States. Doing so clearly violates the Constitution as amended.