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
120 visitors
No it isn't.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 .
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.
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.