Who am I, that the Supreme Court Of The United States should answer my abortion question?
I’m not even a lawyer, or a prolife leader. I’ve never been elected to anything that pays. My question isn’t even being asked by prolifers, that I can tell – and certainly not by abortionists!
But what a question! It is not possible for SCOTUS to answer it, and continue to imagine that aborticide is legal. Answering it will force SCOTUS to outlaw abortion in all 50 states.
Tomorrow, June 15, SCOTUS will vote on whether to answer my question, in a secret “conference”. Only if it receives four votes from the nine justices, will SCOTUS hear the case.
Trending: Build it and “They” will come
SCOTUS reviews only about one percent of the cases it receives. So the only thing we can be sure of is that at least one of the clerks for each of the justices will at least skim the brief, and maybe there will be a prolife clerk or two who will be interested in learning more.
Court rules require that the issues of each case be condensed into one or two questions, which are the first items in the brief. Here is my question:
1. Is the unanimous, uncontested consensus of all four categories of court-recognized finders of facts (juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, and Congress) that all babies are humans/persons from fertilization, sufficient to invoke Roe’s ruling that [once that fact is established] lawmakers and courts must now protect babies’ 14th Amendment right to life by outlawing aborticide?
Duh. A tad wordy, but once you get through the question, the answer kind of jumps out at you, doesn’t it? Our brief argues:
Roe did not, indeed, say how much more evidence it would take to “establish” the fact. But Roe did explicitly say some unspecified level of evidence would, indeed, “collapse” legal aborticide…No more evidence is possible, than the consensus of all court-recognized factfinders…. If not, please tell us: how much more do you need?…The question is ripe.
Juries. The brief explains how juries ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” at fertilization. That was in the earliest abortion prevention trials, of prolifers who blocked abortionist doors so mothers couldn’t get in to kill their babies. Those early juries were told about the Necessity Defense, which justifies an otherwise illegal action that was “necessary” to save lives. That required juries to decide whether unborn babies are “lives”. They decided they were, and acquitted.
That is, until judges stopped allowing defendants to tell juries about their defense, on the ground that Roe v. Wade had ruled that unborn babies are not “persons” as a “matter of law”, making the fact whether aborticide is genocide irrelevant – a monstrous, unthinkable claim that SCOTUS did not make in Roe and has declined to address since.
Roe did not treat “when life begins” as a matter of law so that it doesn’t matter at all whether legal abortion is in fact brutal, barbaric genocide. The concern that it might be is what is expressed in Roe’s “collapse” clause which invites future “establishment” of the matter. Had Roe treated the question as a matter of law, the world’s experts in American law certainly would not have said they are “in no position to speculate” about “when life begins” while the preachers and doctors can’t seem to agree!
Expert witnesses were brought into many of those trials – doctors and scientists – to testify that human life indeed begins with fertilization. They were never contested. No scientific basis has ever been alleged setting “when human life begins” at any later point than fertilization.
(The idea that Roe treats “persons” differently than “humans” was a desperate attempt to make sense of Roe, but it is not the position of Roe. Roe equates “recognizably human” with “person”. Now that every American legal authority that has taken a position has ruled that “life begins” at fertilization, it is beyond dispute that unborn babies are “recognizably human”.)
State Legislatures are the third category of court-recognized finders of facts to rule for the unborn, in their Unborn Victims of Violence Laws. When a thug beats a pregnant woman and her baby dies, 38 states prosecute him for murder. If mom dies too, its a double murder.
Congress is the fourth category, in its Unborn Victims of Violence law, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), enacted April 1, 2004. Our brief addresses confusion about whether paragraph (d), which rules that all unborn babies are “members of the species homo sapiens” as a matter of fact, is somehow nullified by other paragraphs which limit penalties to where the mother didn’t want her baby to die.
Our brief asks SCOTUS a second question:
2. Does any court have the authority to tell Christians they can’t state conclusions based on facts about aborticide that have been established by all four categories of court-recognized finders of facts, and by God?
The case is brought by 84-year-old Donna Holman of Keokuk, IA. She was charged for statements about aborticide outside an aborticide office which nobody said were untrue, or would not have been just as true had Donna never existed. Yet her statements were prosecuted as “threats” and “harassment”.
Several other travesties of Donna’s case only illustrate what every prolifer who has endured prosecution knows: when aborticide is an element of a case, Due Process is poisoned at every level.
A link to Donna’s brief which she let me write for her.
A link to all the briefs and rulings in her case.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.