Some Considerations The Supreme Court Needs To Deal With In Determining The Future Of Abortions in America 1

The Political left is all aflutter regarding the fact that The Supreme Court is reviewing the status of the Roe v Wade ruling of January 22, 1973. Here is what the History Website says about their original decision: "Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion had been illegal throughout much of the country since the late 19th century. Roe v. Wade has proved controversial, and Americans remain divided in their support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion." That ruling was declared to be "the law of the land" by its supporters. There are several things that should be explored and understood as the Court considers the current case which disputes a Mississippi law that bans all abortions after 15 weeks. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the law placed an unconstitutional burden on women's reproductive rights. The case was then appealed by Mississippi AG Lynn Fitch to the Supreme Court.

       To examine the matter further it is prudent to give broad consideration of the of issues now before the Supreme Court. The first issue to be addressed is whether or not the liberal/progressive's claim that Roe v. Wade is in fact the law of the land. This article is one of many that over time have addressed the matter and rendered opinions that it is impossible for Roe v. Wade to be so considered. Greg Moeller, who holds a jurist doctor degree, published in November 2000, an article entitled "Roe v. Wade Is Not the Law of the Land. Exposing the myth of judicial supremacy". He makes a very strong case that it is not.  Here is what he says:    

Roe v. Wade. This infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision that supposedly "legalized" abortion, is rightfully viewed with contempt by millions of Americans who respect the sanctity of life. Widely accepted as the "law of the land," it is held in large part responsible for the execution of over a million pre-born children in the womb in the United States each year. Consequentially, it has been concluded by many that until Roe v. Wade is "overturned" and no longer the "law of the land" that there is nothing substantial that can be done about "legal" abortion.

       As tragic as these legal circumstances may seem, there is perhaps an even more tragic aspect to this entire issue, one that is born out of gross ignorance of the plain text of the Constitution on the part of not only the American public but even many pro-life legislators nationwide. What is it that has gone so wrong after all these years? It's simple. We have been lied to. Roe v. Wade is NOT a law at all, even less the "law of the land". This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact, a fact that is easy to understand by simply picking up the Constitution and reading it. So, lets progress to reading a section of the Constitution that legions of lawyers don't want you to know. In the very beginning, the Constitution reveals something that is powerfully simple in this regard. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

      Article1, Section 1 - U.S. Constitution."  Legislative power is the power to make laws, change laws, change the meaning of laws and eliminate laws. Article 1, Section 1 clearly states that ALL legislative power is vested in Congress. All of it. Period. End of story. What does this mean? It means that federal courts, which are part of the judicial branch of the federal government, have absolutely no legislative power whatsoever. It means federal courts cannot make laws. It means federal courts cannot change laws. It means federal courts cannot change the meaning of laws. It means federal courts cannot eliminate laws. In order to do any of these things, the courts would have to possess legislative power; something the Constitution clearly states is vested ONLY in Congress. Now how hard is that to understand?"     Roe v. Wade is NOT the Law of the Land (famguardian.org)    No impassioned appeal by lawyers or those who oppose abortions have successfully succeeded in challenging Roe v. Wade liberals/progresses call the law of the land..

       Next let's examine the logic that liberals/progressive use to defend their claim that it is a woman's right to choose. It's her body and health that needs to be given priority. Nowhere in U.S. Law does the Constitution or Bill of Rights is there to be found any provision that unborn babies can be killed at the discretion of their mother for any reason. Consider the case where someone murders or accidently kills a pregnant woman and is charged with double homicide because they killed two human beings. How then can it be possible for a woman to have the legal "right to choose" to kill her baby? The logic does not hold. Killing someone either on purpose or accidental is murder. Period.  According to the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute the: 18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children reads thusly: 

"(a)

     (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

    (2) (A) 

Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. 

         (B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

            (i) 

the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or   

            (ii) 

the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.  

       (C) 

If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.  

       (D) 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section."