[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

I wish there was somebody to hear me cry and whine

Judge Jeanine: The plot against President Biden just got real

And it somehow got even Worse.... [OMFG]

Kat Timpf takes glasses off [Hubba hubba]

BREAKING NEWS: Secret Service reportedly knew of threat before Trump took the stage

Leaving Library

WPXI exclusive photos show cell phone, transmitter found next to Trump shooters body

Bill Gates Vows to Eliminate Farmers by Feeding Public with Fake Butter

Elon Musk wants to move SpaceX to Texas over California's trans [homo/pedo/tranny] notification law [Grooming mandate]

College Graduate Sues After Learning Mandatory Tuition Fee Went To Liberal Student Activist Group

Nobody believes the FBI

‘Weak little man’: Mark Hamill blasted online after mocking Donald Trump’s bandaged ear

MSNBC host melts down over Biden being asked about his rhetoric, shouts real threat is 'right-wing' extremism

Local counter-sniper team was inside building where Trump shooter climbed on the roof and opened fire: sources

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Dont buy this excuse from the Secret Service

"BlackRock's Next Plans Will SHOCK THE WORLD" - Whitney Webb's LATEST LARRY FINK EXPOSE

"The Trump Shooter Didn't Act Alone" Sniper Dallas Alexander Reveals |

Do Not Let the Show They're Putting Up at the White House Break Your Heart - It's a Tactic"

"This Is The Final Straw": Musk Announces SpaceX Moving From CA To Texas After Newsom Passes Anti-Parent Gender Law

This Is Why I Regret Voting For Joe Biden In 2020: Latina Business Owner

Many Substances Used For Food Processing Are Never Listed On Ingredient Labels

Palestinians raped and tortured in Israeli detention, says prisoners group

Israel strikes five schools in week of massacres

"Ordered My First MAGA Hat": Closet Trump Supporters Are Coming Out Of Woodwork After Failed Assassination Attempt

WHY? USSS Director Che@tle Admits To Replacing Trumps Permanent Detail With Temporary Agents For Butler Rally

Allstate seeks 34% rate hike for California homeowners; State Farm threatens to exit without price increases.

15 Signs American Families Are Flat Broke

Why the Replace Biden campaign likely came to an end on Saturday: they no longer believe it even matters

Eviction filings surge up to 46% in Sunbelt cities


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Op-Ed: If Babies Have Other Rights Before Birth, Why Don't They Have the Right to Life?
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/op-e ... b2cbe92bd134c5466af5bccb4a232d
Published: Oct 11, 2020
Author: Don Brown
Post Date: 2020-10-12 11:09:04 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 96

Op-Ed: If Babies Have Other Rights Before Birth, Why Don't They Have the Right to Life?

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on Monday. (J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

By Don Brown

Published October 11, 2020 at 11:55am

As Senate confirmation hearings begin for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, one word energizes and mobilizes Senate Democrats above all others:

Abortion.

What began in Roe v. Wade as a bizarre, illogical scheme of validating some abortions by allowing or denying state abortion regulations depending on the trimester of pregnancy in each abortion case has now slithered into something far more insidious: a blood-sucking monster featuring (1) late-term abortion-on-demand, (2) partial-birth abortion-on-demand (killing the baby in the midst of birth) and now, (3) Democrat- justified after-birth abortion, or simply killing the baby after birth.

Remember Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s bone-chilling words, spoken in a genteel Southern dialect as if to mask the evil under the accent:

“The infant would be delivered” and “the infant would be kept comfortable” and “then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother” on whether to let the baby live or to kill the baby.

Nary a Democrat has denounced Northam. Not Biden. Not Harris. Not one.

They can’t denounce. Their constituency would revolt.

But aside from the reprehensible moral implications flowing from Roe, from a legal standpoint, Roe v. Wade remains a constitutional train wreck, the high pinnacle of meddlesome judicial activism by a liberal Supreme Court.

Let’s revisit Roe’s history.

Eight years before Roe, the Supreme Court heard a 1965 contraceptives case called Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold, the court began its tenuous legal stretch to later justify abortion by creating a constitutional “right to privacy” regarding contraceptives.

Because the court wanted to create a constitutional right of privacy for contraceptives, as opposed to leaving the issue to the states, it spun up some flowery language and invented the phrase, “the penumbras formed by the emanations,” a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution.

“Penumbras?”

“Emanations?”

Who talks like that?

Now, having invented “the penumbras formed by the emanations,” the Supreme Court was set and ready for abortion.

Along came Roe in 1973.

To constitutionally justify abortion, the court cited its Griswold decision ten times and its made-up “penumbras” phrase at least three times. Suddenly, the Constitution allowed abortion, 186 years after the fact.

Just like that. From a “constitutional right” to contraceptives to a “constitutional right” to abortions.

Such marks the hallmark of judicial activism: Make up stuff in one case, then make up more stuff in another case, based on made-up stuff from the first case. Ignore the Constitution because activist judges prefer making law over interpreting it.

But Roe v. Wade was decided before ultrasound. And this marks a key to now reversing it.

Before ultrasound, the court’s head-in-the-sand approach, imagining that an unborn baby was not human, proved much easier.

But now, ultrasound shows a beating heart, moving hands, a head tilting back and forth and little moving legs and fingers. Sometimes, we even see the baby smile.

Post-ultrasound, calling the baby part of someone else’s body is less logical than believing in the tooth fairy.

In the law, we call ultrasound “newly discovered evidence.”

“Newly discovered evidence,” based on new technology, allows reversal of bad decisions like Roe.

By analogy, new DNA evidence techniques have reversed many badly decided cases of Americans wrongly convicted before DNA became available.

Roe was decided in 1973.

Thirteen years later, in 1986, Dr. Kazunori Baba of the University of Tokyo developed 3D ultrasound technology, capturing three- dimensional images of babies in the womb. Like the advent of DNA evidence, ultrasound evidence became a factual game-changer.

But what about the constitutional basis of Roe?

Roe ignores the baby’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

Under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, no person shall be deprived of (Fifth Amendment) and no state shall deprive (14th Amendment) “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

“Due process” means (1) notice and (2) an opportunity to be heard.

With an unborn baby, herein lies Roe’s first constitutional failure.

Roe v. Wade ignores the baby’s due process rights before taking his life.

Put another way, before taking an unborn baby’s life, the baby is first entitled to notice of the charges against him. That’s impossible under Roe.

But even if the baby could accept and understand the notice that his life was about to end, there’s no opportunity for a hearing.

Roe ignores the baby’s Fifth and 14th Amendment rights to notice, and then a hearing, prior to execution.

The baby’s Sixth Amendment rights are also ignored by Roe.

In addition to the right to trial by jury, the Sixth Amendment guarantees Americans facing a loss of life or liberty the right (1) to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (2) to confront adverse witnesses; (3) to call to trial favorable witnesses; and (4) to have the assistance of counsel.

The baby, legally entitled to inherit his parents’ property before birth, among other pre-birth rights, loses his Sixth Amendment rights under Roe v. Wade, which is an illogical contradiction.

It’s worth noting that some thirty-eight states allow criminal prosecution of persons who commit violent acts against unborn babies. Yet abortionists may take the baby’s life with virtual impunity, marking another illogical contradiction created by Roe.

Thus, Roe deprives unborn babies, who already have other legal rights, of their constitutional right to due process, to trial by jury, to assistance of counsel and to confront witnesses prior to execution.

It’s not too late for the Supreme Court to correct the tragedy of Roe. And there’s precedent for righting wrongs.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the court struck down public desegregation, reversing its own earlier foolish decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, where it legalized another made-up fiction phrase called “separate but equal.”

And as it did to Plessy, when it ended “separate but equal,” the Supreme Court should flip Roe v. Wade faster than a short-order cook flipping a pancake at Waffle House.

The time has come to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The Constitution demands it.


Poster Comment:

If Roe v Wade is overturned the liberals will go berserk.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  



[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]