Roe v. Wade

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Roe v. Wade
410 U.S. 113
Decided: January 22, 1973

Roe v. Wade (Jan. 22, 1973) was the epitome of liberal judicial supremacy, in which the U.S. Supreme Court created a new "right" in the Constitution for a woman to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy. It weakened the legitimacy of the Court, and resulted in a political reaction against it that continued for decades. The decision caused the death of more than 63 million unborn children.[1] On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court finally overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The Roe decision was issued the same day as Doe v. Bolton, a companion case, which held that states could not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion after the fetus has become "viable" if the physician determines that the abortion is necessary for the "health" of the mother, which could include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age," all of which the Court determined were "relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

The women represented by Roe and Doe have both since come forward to oppose these decisions, and Doe has even described the deceit of the lawsuit brought in her name.

In addition to creating a new constitutional "right", Roe v. Wade also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have standing. In Roe, the Court held that there was standing because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."

This decision is, therefore, one of the most famous examples of law by judicial fiat, that is, judges writing the laws. It created a dangerous precedent that is still followed today by liberal supporters of a "living constitution."

Overturn of Roe v. Wade[edit]

It was disclosed on May 2, 2022, that the Supreme Court has voted in a majority decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has never actually been legal under the Constitution as there has never been a legal provision for abortion anywhere in the Constitution (but which was read into it through specious means by the liberal judges who voted to "legalize" abortion despite not legally having the power or the authority to do so), thereby making abortion-on-demand illegal at the federal level and sending the abortion issue to the individual states to decide (many of which, all Republican-governed, have already voted to outlaw abortion at the state level as well after a set period).[2] In the majority decision to overturn Roe as well as the related Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Samuel Alito stated that "...(t)he Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any Constitutional provision", adding that it "...was egregiously wrong from the start... We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled... It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

On May 11, 2022, a Democrat attempt in the House of Representatives to codify Roe was defeated in the Senate, with Democrat Senator Joe Manchin breaking ranks to vote with the Republicans to block the Democrat bill, 49-51.[3] Prior to the vote, several pro-abortion Democrat congresswomen, led by "Squad" members Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, made a spectacle of themselves as they marched through the Capitol and into the Senate chamber chanting abortion slogans, then applauded a speech by Democrat Senator Patty Murray, for which the congresswomen were chastized in the chamber.[4]

On June 24th, 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was ruled on by the Supreme Court that returned the power to allow states to rule on abortion laws, which overruled Roe v. Wade, outlawing any federal ruling that abortion should be legal.

Reaction by the pro-abortion Left[edit]

The decision, which was leaked to the media, already has pro-abortion liberals freaking out hysterically[5] over finally being forced to take responsibility for their actions regarding the lives of unborn children;[6] numerous Democrats, in fact, began making irrational claims about what they think would happen with the abolition of abortion (particularly Hillary Clinton, who ludicrously claimed that the abolition of abortion was a "...direct assault on the dignity, rights, & lives of women" and that it would "...kill and subjugate women" while ignoring that abortion itself is an assault on the dignity, rights and lives of women, that it has killed unborn female children, that botched abortions have led to the deaths and permanent disabling of some women who underwent them, and that some male supporters of abortion have used it to subjugate their pregnant girlfriends or wives by forcing them to get abortions,[7] as well as falsely claiming the "right" to abortion to be "settled law" even though it has never been),[8] while Democrats and their supporters made calls for violence and other criminal actions in the wake of the announced overturn of Roe v. Wade.[5]

A far-Left group called "Ruth Sent Us" (named for late liberal Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg,[9] who ironically was opposed to Roe v. Wade and to the actions pro-abortion activists have been taking in support of abortion) announced that it had illegally doxxed the conservative Supreme Court judges who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and intend to target their homes with protests in an attempt to criminally intimidate the judges into changing their votes,[10] as well as illegally targeting women of faith at churches while openly stating that they specifically intend to target Catholic churches due to Catholic opposition to abortion.[9] Not surprisingly, the lawless Biden regime refused to condemn the group and its criminal actions against the conservative judges.[11]

Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022 with the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, outraged Democrat politicians, including Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer, reacted to the ruling by illegally attempting to openly incite criminal violence by their leftist followers (including rioting, attacks on churches and pro-life facilities and storming the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC) to protest the overturn of Roe; in response, armed riot police and snipers were stationed at the Supreme Court building to deal with any potential violence instigated by leftist pro-abortionists.[12]

When Glenn Jacobs, the Republican mayor of Knox County, Tennessee who also wrestles in World Wrestling Entertainment as Kane, posted a tweet showing support for the overturn of Roe v. Wade and for the protection of unborn babies, while a majority of Twitter posters tweeted in response in agreement with Jacobs, several fellow professional wrestlers, including All Elite Wrestling wrestlers Britt Baker and Kip Sabian, Impact Wrestling women wrestlers Taya Valkyrie and Rosemary and former WWE woman wrestler Saraya-Jade Bevis (who wrestled as Paige) all posted emotional and profane responses denouncing Jacobs and showing their support for abortion.[13] While the wrestlers who criticized Jacobs for his pro-life stand received some supportive tweets from pro-abortion liberal Twitter users, those same wrestlers were subsequently criticized themselves by other posters who called them out for their support of the on-demand murders of unborn babies and exposing them as liberals who act childishly in response to opposing opinions and who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Opinion[edit]

Majority and concurrences[edit]

Blackmun[edit]

The opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declares that abortion is a "fundamental right" under the U.S. Constitution and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that abortion is a fundamental right because it falls under the "penumbra" of the right to privacy. Roe provided the underpinning for cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut[14] and Lawrence v. Texas,[15] all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."

Specifically, Blackmun found that the right to terminate a pregnancy is in the penumbra of privacy rights protected by substantive due process, since pregnancy can occasion life-changing events for women, changes not to be taken lightly. However, he noted that the woman's interest in her own privacy is counterbalanced, obviously, by the fetus' interest in life, and the state's interest in protecting life. The question, then, is when each interest trumps the other, and what that means at law. Blackmun set up this framework specifically:

”(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. “[16]

The "health of the mother" was defined to include the physical, psychological, and emotional health of the mother. There can be no requirement that the abortion reason be reported to anyone. The upshot is that any pregnant woman could get an abortion for any reason throughout the entire nine months as a constitutional right, provided that she could find an abortionist to do it.

Stewart[edit]

Associate Justice Potter Stewart concurred with the Court's majority opinion on the basis that liberty extends to a women's right to "choose" to end her pregnancy through abortion. Stewart cited the Fourteenth Amendment to further argue that the woman's interests should be protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[17] However, Stewart had only interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in a very biased manner to support his personal opinion, as the phrase "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" would, by definition, apply to unborn children and not just the mother.

Douglas[edit]

Associate Justice William O. Douglas noted in his concurrence that legalizing abortion is part of "protecting privacy" and that sometimes these decisions need to be made by the mother, as he listed pregnancy discomforts, supposed higher mortality rates, mental and physical health burdens, and even lifelong stigma as possible reasons for allowing abortion. Rather than give much rational nor logical explanation, Douglas exaggerated the notion of constitutional rights and offered examples of possible incidents to support his personal opinion that was part of his judicial activism.[18]

Marshall[edit]

Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall also concurred with the Court's majority opinion[19], though any possible documents of his statements regarding his opinion are not known.

Dissents[edit]

Rehnquist[edit]

William Rehnquist cited his dissent in Roe v. Wade on the argument that Roe's complaint does not justify nor give the court power to outlaw abortion restrictions in every state. He also listed 36 states with abortion restrictions to further argue his point in the general sense that powers not given to the federal government should be left to the states (also known as the Tenth Amendment).[20]

White[edit]

Byron White's dissent in Roe v. Wade was owed to his findings that nowhere in the Constitution supports the majority of the Court's opinion. He is known to have said: "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers, and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." White also concluded that the Court's majority opinion values convenience over potential life and that its ruling in prohibiting the protection of that potential life was unacceptable to him.[21]

Subsequent jurisprudence[edit]

The Roe holding was subsequently modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a plurality decision which did away with the trimester framework, as well as lessening the degree of scrutiny of regulation from "fundamental rights" analysis to "undue burden analysis."

Recently the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act (upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart) approved a ban on a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade.

Several cases, up for decision at the Supreme Court in the 2007 term, may whittle away at the holding of the case. Specifically, a South Dakota law banning nearly all abortions is seen as a deliberate attempt to force a test case, where "pro-life" activists will have a chance to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe.[22] However, while Roe may be highly distinguished in these cases, the fact that the central holding of Roe v. Wade is so important to modern civil rights jurisprudence suggests that the whole case is unlikely to be overturned in its entirety, based on the United States concept of stare decisis, or respect for legal precedent. Under this outlook, losing Roe's holding would be fatal to an entire constitutional structure, which the Court disfavors.[23]

Some commentators suggest that limitations of Roe may actually be good for the "pro-choice" movement, as it would allow "pro-life" activists to vent their animosity against judicial activism, while forcing the public to create a more moderate legislative solution to the problem. These commentators perceive the American public as more moderate than either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" movements.[24]

Controversy[edit]

Roe and subsequent decisions following it have incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people. Pro-abortion activists generally argue that it does, while pro-life activists generally argue that it does not.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. 63,459,781 Babies Have Been Killed in Abortions Since Roe v. Wade in 1973
  2. Multiple references:
  3. BREAKING: US Senate Blocks Democrat Abortion Bill at the Gateway Pundit
  4. Pro-Abortion House Democrats March on Senate Chanting “My Body, My Decision!” at the Gateway Pundit
  5. 5.0 5.1 “Burn It All Down!” – Democrats, Leftists Call for Violence Following Leaked SCOTUS Abortion Ruling at the Gateway Pundit (Warning: contains Twitter posts with foul language and incitement to violence)
  6. Barricades Erected at Supreme Court After Reported Leak of Draft Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade; Hundreds of Protesters Start to Gather at Court at the Gateway Pundit
  7. Forced Abortions at Life Dynamics
  8. Multiple references:
  9. 9.0 9.1 Mother’s Day Church Raids Imminent: Radical Leftist Group Planning to Storm Churches
  10. BREAKING: Leftwing Group Doxxes Home Address of Conservative Supreme Court Justices at the Gateway Pundit
  11. Biden White House Refuses to Condemn Left-Wing Group That Doxxed Home Address of Conservative Supreme Court Justices at the Gateway Pundit
  12. BUSLOADS Of Riot Police Head To Supreme Court, Snipers on Rooftop, As Leftist Terrorists (Biggest Threat to America) Gear Up For ANOTHER Summer of Violence at the Gateway Pundit
  13. Wrestling stars react to Glenn Jacobs’ comments on Roe V. Wade decision at Wrestleview.com (Warning: Contains tweets with foul language)
  14. See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
  15. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
  16. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (U.S. 1973)
  17. Roe v. Wade/Concurrence Stewart
  18. Roe_Douglas_Concurrence.pdf
  19. Thurgood Marshall’s Pro-Abortion Record Good Indicator of Elena’s Kagan’s
  20. Roe v. Wade—Dissenting Opinion
  21. Roe v. Wade/Dissent White
  22. The Economist, https://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVJRJTN
  23. See Lawrence v. Texas, supra (relying strongly on Roe v. Wade)
  24. The Economist, https://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNSRJQV

External links[edit]