Judge Gorsuch appears to have more reverence for Roe v. Wade than Roe v. Wade did.
Gorsuch said “the Supreme Court of the United States, in Roe v. Wade, [decided that] a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment….That is the law of the land and I accept the law of the land….”
By contrast, Roe said its failure to recognize a “fetus” as a “person” was not etched in stone, but tentative, only for as long as doctors and preachers don’t agree when 14th Amendment-protected “life begins”. Once fact finders “establish” that “life begins” at conception, then “of course” baby killing’s legality must “collapse”. In other words, if the evidence ever shows abortion/infanticide is killing humans, it has to be outlawed.
That is just as much “precedent” as Roe’s failure to discern unborn “personhood” “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge”.
Gorsuch said “Roe… is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed and reliance interest considerations are important [that is, women have murdered their babies for so long that now they rely on it]…..It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So, a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
By contrast, Roe said its failure to recognize a “fetus” as a “person” was not etched in stone, but tentative, only for as long as doctors and preachers don’t agree when 14th Amendment-protected “life begins”. Once fact finders “establish” that “life begins” at conception, then “of course” baby killing’s legality must “collapse”.
That fact was established 13 years ago today.
On April 1, 2004, Congress established, as a legally recognizable fact which the Supreme Court is bound by “super precedent” to accept, that all unborn babies are humans/persons from conception.
That is exactly what Roe’s “collapse” paragraph said must be established, for abortion’s tentative legality to “collapse”.
The Roe justices regarded “when life begins” as a question for fact finders, not as a legal question. Just one of several ways they showed this was by saying their own ability to address the question was inferior to that of doctors and preachers. They said if doctors and preachers can’t agree, “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is in no position to speculate”.
Virtually all lower courts have said the opposite – that Roe made the absence of personhood in the unborn a matter of law to the extent that the testimony of fact-finders is not even admissible! They say the non-personhood of the unborn is so settled as law that it is irrelevant whether abortion/infanticide is in fact barbaric genocide! Reality is irrelevant! Fortunately the Supreme Court has never said such a crazy thing! Lower courts have said Roe says the opposite of what Roe says.
Trending: An Open Letter to the Supreme Court
Congress’ “finding” of fact, that all unborn babies are humans, made it unanimous and uncontested among all four categories of court-recognized finders of facts. Juries, expert witnesses, and state legislatures – all who had taken a position on the question – had already ruled for the fact. No American legal authority has said 14th Amendment-protected “life begins” any later than conception.
No fact can be any more “established” than to have the unanimous, undisputed consensus of all four categories of court-recognized fact finders. If this is not enough for judges to be able to know that “life begins” at conception, judges are unable to know anything.
Congress’ law, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), doesn’t actually use the word “persons”. But there is no disconnect between “humans” and “persons” in Roe or anywhere else. Confusion over that has been an unfortunate rabbit trail.
Gorsuch “viewed precedent in a serious way, in that it added stability to the law….Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.”
Wait – Gorsuch’s evidence that Roe is “settled law” is that abortion/infanticide “is no longer a hotly contested issue”?!
There is no need to overturn Roe, in order to end legal abortion. The trigger for legal abortion’s “collapse” lies within Roe itself. Congress pulled the trigger 13 years ago. What is needed now is ares cases that force Courts to squarely address these newly established facts. Although stronger “personhood” statutes can’t hurt, the legal recognizability of unborn personhood is already so overwhelming that it is impossible to make it more so.
Here is a 4-page documentation of these claims.
Here is a 40 page legal brief expanding on these claims, that will be one of the freshest on Gorsuch’s desk in a couple of weeks.
What is needed now is to outlaw abortion/infanticide thoroughly enough that the issue of “when life begins” can’t be dodged by any judge, and when the law is tested in court, to cite the consensus of fact finders.
So far the Supreme Court has declined to review the evidence since 1973 of “when life begins”.
Part of the problem has been that, like the crowds afraid to correct the naked king so proud of his imaginary clothes, today’s public is intimidated into silence when honorable judges brazenly claim constitutional protection for infanticide. More “little boys” need to say what they see. Adults need to study enough to see through the rabbit trails and straw men used by lower courts for 44 years to turn Roe’s alleged inability to answer a question into a constitutional requirement that evidence must never be allowed to answer it.
State laws, challenged in court, are defended by the state’s Attorney Generals. Imagine an Attorney General making these arguments in court! State lawmakers can ensure that their attorney general will raise these arguments, by summarizing them in their law’s “findings of facts”, or in an associated resolution.
Cases need to be brought and supported by prolifers that force courts to address the new evidence. An informed public is not lightly ignored by any judge. But ultimately, pro-lifers need to study enough to recognize when a ruling passes beyond sincere misunderstanding to being accessory to genocide, and be ready to hold state judges accountable in retention elections, and federal judges through impeachment.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.