SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is a really bad argument. really bad. unless you're saying that it's no longer the responsibility and privilege of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
7 to 1 scotus says no to abortion restrictions
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
that is a really bad argument. really bad. unless you're saying that it's no longer the responsibility and privilege of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
[h=1]The following op-Ed is exactly spot on!
No, Abortion Actually Isn’t A Constitutional Right[/h]The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.
On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) legalized the procedure of abortion for any reason before “fetal viability,” which is loosely defined.
The Court stipulated that abortion must be permitted for “health reasons” of the woman—up until birth. Yet the Court’s broad definition of “health reasons” essentially allowed for any reason and legalized abortion on demand.
The Court’s ruling actually violated the Constitution on several grounds. The majority opinion expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a woman’s “liberty,” which included a “right of privacy … broad enough to encompass” her right to have an abortion.
Yet, the Court illegally excluded a particular class of people (the unborn) from the Due Process Clause’s protection. It effectually created “a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings,” attests University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.
Likewise, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who supports legalized abortion) points out: “As a constitutional argument Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
The Court’s ruling violated the Constitution’s most fundamental principle: human equality and the protection of one’s right to live. The Constitution requires that every human life be protected, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or dependency on another human being.
The Court also ignored legal jurisprudence and historical context regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws prohibited abortion prior to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption in 1868—contrary to Blackmun’s demonstrably false claims.
Constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely wrote:
Against the will of the people, and in defiance of the Constitution, the Court created policy not based on the Constitution.
Yet the Supreme Court is not the ultimate legal authority in America. The Court does not have the final word on legal matters; American citizens do. The Founders created separation of powers for a reason — Congress can overrule the Supreme Court as well as the president; states can overrule Congress. Congress and state legislatures determine policy as elected branches of government—elected by the people. And the people (in 1973 and 2015) overwhelmingly supportsignificant restrictions on abortion.
By legalizing abortion, the Court legalized the leading cause of murder and human death in America. Since 1973, more than 56 million human beings have been “legally” killed.
The Court in Roe usurped the authority of the people and made murder, illegal according to the Constitution, legal. The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.
This column was first published on Constitution.com.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Bethany Blankley August 6, 2015 at 10:36am
No, Abortion Actually Isn’t A Constitutional Right[/h]The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.
On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) legalized the procedure of abortion for any reason before “fetal viability,” which is loosely defined.
The Court stipulated that abortion must be permitted for “health reasons” of the woman—up until birth. Yet the Court’s broad definition of “health reasons” essentially allowed for any reason and legalized abortion on demand.
The Court’s ruling actually violated the Constitution on several grounds. The majority opinion expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a woman’s “liberty,” which included a “right of privacy … broad enough to encompass” her right to have an abortion.
Yet, the Court illegally excluded a particular class of people (the unborn) from the Due Process Clause’s protection. It effectually created “a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings,” attests University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.
Likewise, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who supports legalized abortion) points out: “As a constitutional argument Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
The Court’s ruling violated the Constitution’s most fundamental principle: human equality and the protection of one’s right to live. The Constitution requires that every human life be protected, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or dependency on another human being.
The Court also ignored legal jurisprudence and historical context regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws prohibited abortion prior to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption in 1868—contrary to Blackmun’s demonstrably false claims.
Constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely wrote:
What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure… It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.
The Court also created another precedent by striking down state laws as illegal which had existed in all 50 states for roughly 100 years. These state laws were enacted democratically — decided by voters either through ballot initiatives or elected state legislatures. The Court overruled the rightful authority of the people in each of these states—and the other two branches of government did nothing in response.
Against the will of the people, and in defiance of the Constitution, the Court created policy not based on the Constitution.
Yet the Supreme Court is not the ultimate legal authority in America. The Court does not have the final word on legal matters; American citizens do. The Founders created separation of powers for a reason — Congress can overrule the Supreme Court as well as the president; states can overrule Congress. Congress and state legislatures determine policy as elected branches of government—elected by the people. And the people (in 1973 and 2015) overwhelmingly supportsignificant restrictions on abortion.
By legalizing abortion, the Court legalized the leading cause of murder and human death in America. Since 1973, more than 56 million human beings have been “legally” killed.
The Court in Roe usurped the authority of the people and made murder, illegal according to the Constitution, legal. The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.
This column was first published on Constitution.com.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Bethany Blankley August 6, 2015 at 10:36am
SmarterthanYou
rebel
we all know you're willing to sacrifice the rights of others so that you can 'feel' better about yourself, but what if the government wanted to force a dangerous treatment upon your children or grandchildren that stood a good chance of making them worse or dead? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?????
So, a child does not have a right to life if his parents don't want to allow him lifesaving treatment?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you didn't answer the question.....which means that you wish to ignore reality.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
is it a right of jehovahs witnesses to deny blood products even if it will save their childs life?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Try presenting a real argument for once
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Obama has never shown his original birth certificate. He has only presented a certificate of live birth. They are two different things. You know that right?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
As you have had ample time to see my proof points in APP and present a counter argument and have not, I humbly accept your concession
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
but nobody has done anything to interfere with any care.....only to limit abortions.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
stepping on the weak?.....sounds like an abortion procedure.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
in the US the parents do not have the right to deny lifesaving treatment.......however, since we are actually talking about people who believe they have the right to a life TAKING procedure, your argument is irrelevant........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
true.....you have to cut his head off first.....
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so jehovahs witnesses have no right to deny blood transfusions that would save the lives of their children?
I would say no. If there exists absolute certainty that the child lives by having the transfusion, but dies without it- the state has a right to intervene. We don't have a right to claim religious liberty if it allows the certain death of another. A parent has a right as guardian of a child, but not a right over deciding a child's right to life.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then I dare say you have no sense of freedom at all.
So a parent has a constitutional right to make a decision to kill his child by the mere fact of his/her relationship? The child has no right to life because he/she is a minor?