Saturday Evening Judicial Reiew Post #9
Today, we want to continue our discourse on the “right to privacy” issue we have been exploring in our previous Saturday Evening Judicial Review Posts, which can be read by clicking on that category on your left. We have already noted how we got to the point where we are, and how that has been done by bits and pieces in both majority and minority opinions handed down by the SCOTUS in various cases up to the issue before us today.
Today we want to look at Roe v. Wade. We will only give a synopsis of how Roe became Constitutional law. If you want to know more concerning the influences which effected the minds and opinions of the Justices who supported this decision, you will need to purchase and read Men In Black written by Mark R. Levin. You can purchase the book by clicking the link on your left.
Suffice it to say, Roe v. Wade was decided on extra-constitutional rationales like population control, pollution, poverty, racial overtones, opposing medical viewpoints, philosophical, theological, and the moral standards of the Justices writing at the time. Levin in quoting from Bob Woodward’s book, The Brethren, relates a passage from Justice Lewis Powell.
“Powell came quickly to the conclusion that the Constitution did not provide meaningful guidance. The right to privacy was tenuous; at best it was implied. If there was no way to find an answer in the Constitution, Powell felt he would just have to vote his ‘gut’.”
Levin’s conclusion for the above statement, was:
“Powell’s vote, in other words, was not dictated by a serious effort to intepret the Constitution. Instead, he made a policy decision and then set out to justify it.”
As we round off the discussion of rationale, we must also note the following from Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in writing for the majority. Again according to Levin, Blackmun was not satisfied in striking down the Texas law in Roe v. Wade, he wanted to go further in writing a new federal statute.
“But Blackmun specifically declared that the unborn child was not a ‘person’ under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus had no equal protection rights.”
Blackmun constructed the tri-mester design in place today, which places the interests of the mother having more discretion in the early stages of life, than the state’s interests, with the state having more discretion in the latter stages of pregnancy. By the language he used, and rationale’s in place, according to Levin,
“Blackmun did establish, at least for constitutional purposes, when life begins by recognizing abortion as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.”
We should expound on some of the rationales used above to justify this establishment of constitutional law.
- None of the rationales used by these Justices are rooted or based in the Constution of the United States.
- The opinions of these Justices are their own subjective views of culture and society.
- These non-elected Justices have ursuped the authority of elected State and Federal Legislatures who represent the cultural and societal views of their constituents.
Concerning number one above, by their own admission, these Justices have stated the fact, that there is no right to privacy guarantee in the Federal Constitution. We have also documented that premise before, here, and here. There is no need to further prove that it does not exist.
Concerning number two above, why should five justices opinions on culture and society take precedence over what a clear majority of citizens believe on the issue of abortion? This is the fundamental issue here. If the Supreme Court Justices would confine themselves to the Constituion, there would be no personal opinions interjected into the law.
Which brings us to number three. By ignoring the Constituion, these Justices have taken away the power and rule of the people and their representatives and over-ruled it with their own.
In conclusion, medical opinion changes as often as the latest study which is reported out by the AMA. We also want to say that there are good physicians, and there are bad ones. Who is to say if a Doctor’s opinion is correct or not, that’s why we get a second opinion when contemplating a major medical procedure.
Birth control is so inexpensive today, there should be no further need for abortion as a means for population control. Population control should be taken off the table as a rationalization for abortion.
That leaves us basically with philosophical, theological, and moral standards for a rationale. The vast majority of the citizens of this country are opposed to abortion in one form or another. Partial-birth abortion has become anathema because the public has finally been made aware of it’s barbarity. Second tri-mester abortions are no longer needed because medical advances have made the viability of life outside the womb so much easier.
So that leaves us with the question of when life begins. There are many differing opinions on this subject. But let’s take a look at a recent event which points to a sanctity of life for the unborn. The Scott Peterson trial proved a sanctity for life in the womb, because he was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. People can now be prosecuted for the death of a unborn baby in the mother’s womb. You can’t have it both ways. Either an unborn baby is life, and brings on legal penalties for it’s death, or it is not.
Let us state categorically our belief that life begins at conception, and any means used in bringing about the death of an unborn baby is murder.
We derive the above belief from “The Bible”. Many will disregard all we have written above because of this statement, but a disregard for truth does not make it untrue. With all that has been broadcast and written by MSM recently about reverence and respect concerning “Holy Books”, we believe there should be the same reverence and respect accorded for God’s Word, “The Bible”.
How important it is for us to regain the firm foundation of the Constitution as the law of the land, and to regain the powers lost by the elected representatives of the people, instead of resting it in the hands of a few men and women in black robes.
All quotations above were taken from Mark R. Levin’s book, Men In Black, which is a must read for understanding how the Men and Women of the Supreme Court of the United States have ursuped the powers of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our government.
