Time to overturn Roe v. Wade
By: Star Parker
The author is right. She makes great points why we should preserve and protect life and respect life. It is no evident that since the evil that is abortion became legalized in our nation. It is a cancer that eats away at the life of our society and culture. It is time for the court to take the first step toward restoring our values as a people and nation by overturning Roe vs. Wade.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Restoring sanctity of life in the womb is a good place to start turning things around in America. My prayer is that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree.
In May, the Supreme Court put abortion on the docket for its upcoming session by agreeing to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization .
The high court's decision to hear this case registered on the seismometer of every American that carefully follows the abortion issue. It means that Roe v. Wade , which has defined abortion reality in the country since 1973, is open to review and could be overturned.
The Mississippi law in question, which bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, was struck down by an appeals court in 2019. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Last week, Mississippi's attorney general submitted its brief to the Supreme Court.
A central point of contention will be the issue of viability. Viability – the point at which the unborn child can survive outside of the womb – has been the legal criterion for drawing the line beyond which a woman's alleged right to destroy the child within her is no longer assumed.
Given that viability is assumed to occur at 24 weeks, the 15-week provision of the Mississippi law upends this standard.
The Mississippi attorney general questions the relevance of the viability standard, challenging particularly that there is any basis for it in the Constitution.
But we must dig deep here, because we're not just dealing with the question of viability of the unborn child. We are dealing with questions about the viability of our society and our country.
Can we really function as a society and as a nation while turning away from the most central issue that any society faces – awe of the mystery of life?
There might indeed be a point in time when an unborn child can be removed from its mother and physically survive. But although there may be a point where that child might not need its mother to survive, it still needs others. Someone must take care of that child, meaning someone must care about that child's life. If not, that child will die.
So, the legal idea of viability that has been sustaining the Roe v. Wade world really has no meaning.
In 2014, the Vatican hosted an international colloquium on "The Complementarity of Man and Woman."
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of the U.K., gave an address about marriage. He spoke of "the idea of the love that brings new life into the world." Sacks observed that "life begins when male and female meet and embrace."
It is hard to believe that in our nation today, when there is so much outrage about racism, many of those who see racism as a problem do not see indifference to the sanctity of life as a problem.
But if all life is not sacred, if every human being is not a unique creation in the image of God, what is wrong with being a racist?
Why would slavery be a problem if every human being is not a divine creation?
It is no accident that following the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, we have seen a collapse of the American family and now the general collapse of birth itself.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week: "In half of all states last year, more people died than were born, up from five states in 2019. Early estimates show the total U.S. population grew 0.35% for the year ended July 1, 2020, the lowest ever documented, and growth is expected to remain near flat this year."
A society without family and children, with increasing drug overdoses and suicides, with reports of far too great a frequency of individuals pointlessly murdering people they don't know, is a society whose soul is in bad shape.
Restoring sanctity of life in the womb is a good place to start turning things around.
My prayer is that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the new weekly television show "Cure America with Star Parker."
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
So you agree that anti vaccine people have the same right to their body as a pro abort person does to hers? The difference is that the former only affects themselves while the latter carried out takes a human life.
Incorrect.
XX won't ever answer this. Once abortions are made illegal again what should be the punishment for the women and doctors?
There is no question there. Fetal viability is at approximately 23 weeks gestation.
Which has nothing to do with abortion.
I'd say there are currently a lot more pressing issues than that.
Technically, a fetus is capable of surviving after viability. But not before.
False. Roe never dealt with viability directly. It dealt with the trimester framework. It wasn't until Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) that established the viability standard over the trimester framework. Viability is medically established to be at approximately 23 weeks gestation. That was critical to the Casey case.
Who cares? Religion is not a valid argument or basis for a legal ruling affecting established laws and precedents. Plus, that is an appeal to emotion.
A false equivalency.
For a long time, including our own country's history, some did not see slavery as a problem. Even the bible did not see slavery as a problem.
A logical fallacy.
So? A stable population is a good thing. There's already overpopulation anyway. Why do we need more?
What were the penalties in 1972 in the states that hadn’t legalized these preborn killings yet?
Typically they included fines and/or imprisonment, especially for abortion providers. Providers wouls also risk losing their medical license.
That isn't what I asked. What do you propose?
We need to do more than just “start.”
We do! I spent and hope to continue to spend my entire career working with and helping at risk and special needs youth. I have taken in foster kids and adopted. The number of willing foster and adopt families in my area is impressive.
Anecdotal stories won't stop this issue. Why? Because girls and women can have more babies than you can 'import' - in one year! So that's bull patty dripping off some conservative's computers. Moreover, it won't take long before some conservatives (who are using pro-life as a life-long career enhancing "cash-donation cow" and "Go to") start harking about girls and women marrying creeps and return to their domestic lifestyles and bare-feet!
Import? The rest is a typical anti conservative slander rant.
Import into your area. How is it that not clear? I have to ask do you keep up with the meaning in your own comments?
No it isn't.
Yes, it is! It’s way past time to stop the slaughter of the innocents.
Then, DeathSantis should require masks in Florida schools.
Melodramatic nonsense.
Who exactly is being slaughtered? Death Certificates, names, dates of birth?
Pure hyperbole.
There is no evidence of children passing the virus to adults or getting China virus in significant numbers
What in the fuck does that have to do with the topic of your seed?
Nothing what so ever....as usual.
I have yet to see any rational, objective argument put forth against abortion rights. Usually such arguments are based on religion and/or emotion. Not to mention those more strongly opposed to abortion fail to consider the ramifications of prohibiting abortion. Instead, they remain tunnel visioned on a fetus or abortion itself.
(deleted)
I see you are incapable of actually addressing my post and instead resort to cut and paste (with erroneous information) with no original thought included.
I thought you told us some conservatives use critical thinking above emotions; that whole 'spill' above is nothing more than a 'emotion-play.' For the record, no woman with good sense 'toys' around with abortion and the destruction of a life, yes a life, growing inside her. For that matter, neither do the courts, it is a serious "exit" maneuver not offered or followed through lightly!
I have yet to see that, especially when it comes to the issue of abortion.
It is time to pass a constitutional amendment protecting womens' right to control their bodies. The attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade is nothing more than a right-wing Christian dominionist dictatorial power grab.
There is no national consensus for a constitutional amendment. No two thirds of both houses or 2/3 of the states to approve You need 38 of the 50 states to ratify it
The vast majority of Americans polled, year after year, confirming the national consensus, OPPOSE overturning Roe v. Wade.
Then pass the Amendment and make it a legitimate right.
The constitution has already been interpreted to deem abortion a right.
Then it can be interpreted to mean we must join the Baptist church and pay tithes. . The First Amendment can just "evolve" if it's a living document that has no fixed meaning.
Words matter. Or they do if you believe in the rule of law. There is no right to abortion and you can't find any text saying so. . Even the proponents of the supposed right argue where it supposedly exists.
It is already a legitimate right. The Supreme Court confirmed that in Roe v. Wade. The purpose of a constitutional amendment would be to prevent the anti-abortions forces from deligitimizing it.
Abortion rights had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be valid?
There's no textual basis for the "right" so it can't be legitimate right. Pass an amendment and it's legitimate Until then it's just the whim of unelected justices with no basis other then the justices preferred moral agenda..
Lol. Pay attention.
The SCOTUS already said it is.
With a right of "privacy!"
The SCOTUS already said it is.
Then the SCOTUS can say it's not, since there is no textual basis for it. It was made up by activist justices who wanted to play at being legislators and impose their preferred policy on the country. .
What new knowledge has come forth to convince SCOTUS that their 1st ruling was incorrect? That government should have the right to take control of a woman's body and force her to do something against her will?
Marbury v. Madison, along with every other precedent, confirms that your reactionary propaganda talking point is wrong. Save that for the next meeting of the CPAC cabal.
You first, as it seems you do not understand how the constitution was interpreted to include abortion choice and the relevant Amendments involved with that interpretation.
Why would you need "new knowledge." The Court corrects errors all the time.
Pass an Amendment if you want to create right. Don't abuse the Constitution.
Come forth?
To this very day they can't explain how they came up with that decision!
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
“ Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”...Ruth Bader Ginsburg
She was right. It began the right to life movement and has been controversial to this very day.
[Deleted] I know your arguments better than you do. You only seem to be able to appeal to authority.
Cool. Where in Marbury v Madison did the Court assume the power to rewrite the Constitution? Please cite that passage.
First calm the hysterics. Second, now you are claiming that "every precedent" rejects the principles that laws and the Constitution mean what they say? That's beyond ridiculous, but if you want to take up the cause of arbitrary government put down by King James II in 1688, be my guest
Spare me your condescension and don't call me son! And don't presume to think you know my argument better than I. You've offered nothing to support your position other than something along the lines of "nu-huh."
Then you aren't paying attention. I've pointed out there's no textual basis for the right and the damage done to the foundations of our legal system by a jurisprudence that ignores the text of the Constitution and democratically passed statues in favor of justices imposing their own personally favored policy results in their place. If you believe the Court has the power to can arbitrarily create rights with no textual basis, you have no basis to object if the Court rules the other way. When your whole argument is the simple minded "the Court says so" then you have no basis to object to any Supreme Court decision ever.
But my argument, of course, assumes the pro abortion crowd cares about logic or consistent principles and simply isn't just interested in using whatever tool is handy to help them exercising power. And that, as we've seen, is a bad assumption.
It wouldn’t change a thing. The battle would continue. Prohibition was a constitutional amendment too. Even if you got pro abort into the constitution we’d wage unending efforts not a bit different than being waged now to repeal it just as prohibition was repealed.
great advice! I hope you always remember it in addressing others…
You seem to think that the Constitution only applies if something is explicitly stated. That ignores the concept of judicial review, which falls exclusively to the courts, especially the SCOTUS. The courts are responsible for interpreting the Constitution in passing opinion on relative legal matters. That's exactly what they did with Roe and all subsequent related cases only affirmed established precedent.
A bias (or ad hom attack) does not lend your "argument" any credibility.
Then you will continue to lose!
I tell us what: It strikes me that we will die and be cold in our graves and some conservatives of the future will still be making money off of culture issues (and selling books). We have no choice. The time has come to diminish conservatism but good in this country! For the good of future liberals and independents (who have their liberties stricken or removed.
Indeed. It seems everytime there's a change up in the SCOTUS lineup, pro-lifers start salivating over the idea of depriving women their rights. But unless the SCOTUS completely ignores multiple, long standing precedents, Roe is unlikely to (and should not) be overturned.
I agree with you completely, except the term "pro-lifers" is a misnomer. The proper term is "anti-choicers". Or possibly, "pro-dominionists".
Your agreement makes you wise.
As for terminology, pro-lifer seems to be almost synonymous with "anti-choicer."
This is true.
Who is calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned? Pro-lifers or pro-choicers?
And since your entire point has just been obliviated by 2 simple questions.
Pro abortionists. Pro aborts, anti life.
Being a devotee of the Trump Death Cult while claiming to be "pro-life" is an oxymoron of the first order.
Opposing a woman's right to control her own body is akin to being pro-ISIS, pro-Taliban and pro-slavery.
My wisdom makes me agree.
You mean make it an actual Constiitional right? That would be the honest and legal way to do it.
Since when have Democrats cared about the rule of law? They find it easier to invent rights they "discover" hiding in the Constitution that they somehow missed for scores of years.
It already is. See Comment 3.1.5 above.
Your suggestion that a Supreme Court ruling is not "legal" is unfounded.
Since always, unlike their lawless, insurrectionist counterparts.
Wise move not trying to defend it and just relying on the old appeal to authority.
OF course, that means you'd have to accept Roe being overturned as well.
ur suggestion that a Supreme Court ruling is not "legal" is unfounded.
Substitute Constitutional.
Lol. Biden would never an issue an executive order in defiance of the Supreme Court, right?
It appears that your understanding of constitutional law, and precedent, is woefully inadequate. But, that's OK. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how badly misinformed.
You have about a year and a half, but you are way short on votes.
A year and a half (the remainder of the current Congressional term) has nothing to do with the goal of securing a woman's right to control her own body.
Why didn't your activist liberal judges tell us it was about a woman controlling her body?
Where is the right of privacy in the Constitution?
Why don't your activist reactionary judges tell us overturning Roe v. Wade is about usurping a woman's right to control her own body?
For anyone who is informed about American Constitutional Law, the concept of the right of privacy is pervasive. The Supreme Court has found a right of privacy in the following instances:
Read the following link and become informed:
the 9th and 14th Amendment, as interpreted and established in legal precedent by the SCOTUS. There are multiple SCOTUS cases dealing with privacy issues. Or do you think you do not have any right to privacy?
So what happened to all the right wing defenders who, when Trump was hypocritically ramming his Supreme court nominees through just before an election, said that they wouldn't be "activist" judges picked for their partisan willingness to overturn Roe v Wade? Right wing religious conservatives are so fucking predictable its embarrassing that they ever tried to deny their true intentions.
NO surprise the left reverts to Orwellian type and redefines a term when it was used against them. Judicial activism refers to judges ignoring the text of a law or the Constitution to impose their own personal policy preferences over that of the written law.
So by your own definition, if they overturn Roe v Wade, it will be judicial activism. Since a woman's right to privacy (abortion) is already written law.
Restore the Constitution and democracy.
It's time to stop pretending that religious conservatives give a fuck about the constitution or democracy.
" As debates over abortion continue in states around the country, a majority of Americans (61%) continue to say that abortion should be legal in all (27%) or most (34%) cases."
That's some irony coming from someone who supports the mangling of the Constitution to impose your own policies on the country and forbid people from voting on a subject.
Where did DP magnesium the constitution or impose his own policy?
Do you feel that a person should be able to violate local laws due to their sincere religious beliefs?
Absolutely yes. That’s preventing others from imposing upon them. There is religious liberty in the constitution. Abortion is not there anywhere.
Then since the bible supports killing non-believers, you feel murder should be allowed as long as the murderer has sincere religious beliefs?
And since the bible supports abortion, how does that fit in with your beliefs?
There is also the separation of church and state. So you cannot impose your religious beliefs regarding abortion (or anything else) into the law or government.
The SCOTUS disagrees.
That’s why a Supreme Court brief includes 4D sonograms to show the science that’s evolved since 1972 and how preborn babies really are human beings with God given and constitutional rights.
Abortion has gone before the SCOTUS multiple times since 1973. Science has only allowed the court to expand on aborton rights.
That's your opinion, not the SCOTUS'.
Lousy autocorrect. It was supposed to say where did DP mangle the constitution.
There are no "god given" rights, only the rights granted by the laws based on the Constitution.
I think the concept of "natural rights" otherwise known as "God given rights" is meant to preclude the purpose of government and proclaim that rights precede government.
I don't think we have any way of knowing whether or not this is, or even could possibly be, objectively true.
But we do know that rights cannot be enforced without some sort of controlling authority, usually called government.
The idea that natural or God given rights will be respected without a controlling authority is utopian wishful thinking.
How about "inalienable" rights?
Wouldn't freedom of movement be a "god given" right ? In other words, do human beings have a right to go wherever they want to on this earth?
Who decides what is a God given right and what is a man made right?
How do we know that people dont have a "god given right" to walk from point A to point B , represented on this map ?
I know of none. You have any examples?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness spring to mind.
Ahhh, nope. Inalienable or "god given", would mean rights that cannot be taken away.
LIFE - You can be killed.
LIBERTY - Slavery or prisoners.
PURSUIT of HAPPINESS - Once again prisoner.
Or talk to anyone in war torn areas about their rights to Life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
So Thomas Jefferson didn't know what he was talking about? Interesting.
Also, I'm not sure that the fact somebody can violate a right means it somehow isn't one.
Both of these are excellent questions.
The topic of god-given or inalienable rights or natural rights is one of appealing to a higher authority than 'man.' It is that man-made laws should not be instituted to damage foundational liberties and opportunities of our basic humanity.
Although, some conservatives are thrilled to chop away about the 'head and shoulders' of other people "foundational" liberties, opportunities, and basic humanity.
That’s false. All powers and rights not specifically enumerated by the constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. The constitution isn’t a government granter of rights to its subjects. It is a limitation of government power and a statement of what government can not do to its sovereign citizens.
The citizens and people from elsewhere existing in point A are not US citizens and thus have no right to move to point B.
Can you please point out on the 4D sonogram where the "God given and constitutional rights" are visible?
If the one claiming it is as a 'right' applies it to just themselves and a specific group, then it's not a 'right', it's a privilege.
When the founders claimed "all men are created equal" they were first relegating women to second class status and also were not intending to imply that 'men' from other races or cultures could be considered 'men' and often referred to their adult black slaves as 'boy'.
It's not the grantor but is the protector of specific rights enshrined in the constitution.
While it sets limits on government power, it is also a protector of the minority against the will of the majority.
In the past the majority didn't recognize women's rights or black Americans rights even though the declaration of independence claimed "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". As we've grown as a nation and recognized the hypocrisy in claiming and protecting rights for some while ignoring and violating the rights of others we now attempt to meet the true meaning of those words for all, regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. We understand that the protections of personal privacy that previously only applied to white Christian males actually do extend to women and minorities. The justices made this clear in Roe v Wade that recognized that the constitutionally protected right to privacy would obviously extend to a woman and her own body regardless of whether some wacko religious zealot wanted to strip her of her rights after somehow finding out she was pregnant (which is none of their fucking business to begin with and is protected by HIPAA laws).
So until the religious zealots are able to prove their God exists and that somehow they have the 'God given right' to invade another woman's body and force her to keep a pregnancy or conversely force sterilization like some right wing fascists of the past have done, then they should keep their fucking hands to themselves and stay out of other peoples private health information and bodies.
Stop trying to legislate morality. Those who do even in their own States prove themselves vile little pieces of garbage that are trying to shit on the constitution, shit on the government and the rule of law all because they value their religion more than their fellow citizens, constitution or America. Those types of people don't deserve to think of themselves as Americans if they are so willing to sacrifice our constitution and rights to privacy on the pyre of their faith, they should be seen as religious zealots not beholden to any government and a very dangerous element within society we should protect ourselves against for they cannot be trusted.
That's right, The government is limited from telling its sovereign citizens that they can not have an abortion if they want one
[Deleted]
You are correct, abortion is not a right granted in the constitution. But I also don't believe that a limitation on abortion is found in the constitution either. As much as I dislike abortion I truly believe that it is a decision that should be between the individual, their medical providers and their church. Nobody (individual or government) should be in the middle of that mix. If half the country is wrong about abortion and it is a sin then they will eventually have to answer for it when they are standing in front of God.
[Deleted]
Back to school with you. The states have leeway, but ALL state laws must meet Constitutionality requirements. States have no powers to bypass the Constitution.
It pretty much is.
By saying that no law, federal or state, can take away specific rights as granted by the Constitution.
If RvW were overturned then how would all the Christians get their abortions?
If R vs W was reversed it would mean that each state would again be free to make its own decision on the matter via the voter initiative or the state legislature. Ending Roe vs Wade would not end Abortion in America. It would take an opposite of roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision to do that or a constitutional amendment banning all abortion except to protect the life of the mother and any other very narrow exceptions as written.
Yeah, but why do you want to make it harder for all those Christians who are seeking abortions?
You are greatly exaggerating how many Christians get them and ignore the fact that liberal mainline Protestant denominations and their membership don’t oppose abortion.
Then we'd fall right back into back alley abortion times when women were mutilated or even died as a result. Sad how some people want to go socially backwards.
Of course not. It would just make abortions unsafe for women again.
At least they're smart about that.
Lol. Bullshit. I’ve been around for more than half a century and the only people that I have ever known to personally terminate pregnancies were Christians. You know this.
That is an utterly ridiculous comment. Hal did not put any number or suggest any percentage of how many Christans have abortions. The only exaggeration is your false allegation. Your attempt to make Hal look bad exploded in your face.
I really hope they do not overturn Roe v Wade. I'm not a fan of abortion so I will never get one for myself. (of course it helps that I'm in my middle 60's and male so the need for one is IMO greatly reduced).
I don't want to go back to a time when you either traveled to another state or you searched out some back-alley provider to perform the abortion and you hoped and preyed that he at least cleaned his instruments before using them on you.
Some people will say that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being, others will argue that it's not yet human. As we do not know when a soul inhabits the body I believe that we will need to wait until we are in front of our Maker to know if we were right or wrong. But until I am either dead and as part of standing in front of God I know all those things I do not know now, or divine revelation is made to show the truth, I do not feel this should be changed. I am not wise enough to make the decision for another so I will not pick up that stone.
And there it is. It isn't your choice and isn't your problem.
I worry about overpopulation which multiplies every other problem .
Over population as an issue is so 1970’s!
If it had been addressed in 1970s we would have much less problems now
In a lot of ways it was addressed then and in the 80’s and 90’s. Africa and India stabilized their average family size and rates of population growth without using draconian measures that China resorted to. Many developed nations are facing future population decreases. The USA without some immigration would be facing population loss now.
Not nearly enough. The world population continues to grow.
Prohibiting abortions is draconian in itself. Romania tried that and it didn't go well.
A society without family and children, with increasing drug overdoses and suicides, with reports of far too great a frequency of individuals pointlessly murdering people they don't know, is a society whose soul is in bad shape. Restoring sanctity of life in the womb is a good place to start turning things around.
Jesus Christ - how backwards is this statement? Perhaps the author should consider how devastating it has been for children and relatives of these drug dependents. It’s moronic to use the drug epidemic to try and strengthen a pro-life argument. Saddling this demographic with more kids is about the worst thing you could ever to for the welfare of children in general. And when those parents overdose and die, someone else gets saddled with kids they never asked for.
It’s about rebuilding our culture of traditional and moral values that have been debased by the removal of God from our schools and legalizing the premature termination of our young.
Mere opinion.
The more you all push your agenda on the public the more obvious it is that you fully understand that prayer does not work, so you have to go for plan B, which is oppression. If prayer worked, your objectives would already be being realized and there would be fewer abortions, and more responsible parenting, and fewer drug overdoses. What’s going to be your plan when those who shouldn’t be having children no longer have a choice and there’s suddenly a million more hungry mouths not being fed? Kids not being nurtured, not being loved, growing up in an inescapable cycle of poverty that you all nothing to try and fix, and that your absent god couldn’t care less about.
The truth.
It is the secular progressive elites that resort to oppression, not us. As to the rest, you don’t know me or what I care about. Also see post #1
Only in your mind!
You haven't learned yet? Twice now I have provided bible quotes showing how god is pro-abortion, and yet you still deny it. If you do not even believe your own holy book, what would you believe?
Secular progressives do not tell you to live your life exactly as they say, or suffer eternal torment. That would be the religions doing that.
The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, unwanted pregnancy is involuntary servitude.
Indeed. When you mandate that women MUST give birth when pregnant, you are also stating that they start losing their constitutional rights.
That's exactly what will happen if Roe is overturned.
The constitutional right to a license to kill their way out of an inconvenient situation.
No it’s not. Abortion is capital punishment meted out to the innocent.
Some women might disagree.
Wrong again, and with an emotional flair.