Copyright by James R. Carlson
The recent decision in Dobbs where the Supreme Court returned the abortion issue to the States and the People respectively has many scrambling trying to figure out how to draft legislation on this issue. While legislation is in order, let’s begin a national dialogue on a Constitutional Amendment at both the State and Federal levels that will provide a permanent foundation for limiting ALL Elective Abortions.
The Roe v Wade case has put many people on record supporting or opposing the 1973 decision; but what did they support or oppose? For those who supported it, are they aware of what they supported? For those who opposed it, what were they opposing? And what did Roe v Wade actually say? Did it actually end all barriers to all abortions? Did over-ruling Roe v Wade require an end to all abortions? The answer is an easy NO to both sides of the question.
First, the infamous decision of 1973 led to the removal of Texas statutes from the Texas Penal Code, that prosecuted only elective abortion; this effectively placed abortion in a state of anarchy. This anarchy allowed advocates of abortion to seek an unfettered use of abortion on demand (contrary to actual Court ruling). While touting the decision of the 1973 Court, advocates of abortion fail to recognize that the Court did not support an absolute Right to Choose abortion upon demand. So, while decrying the ills of Dobbs, Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion advocates praise of the 1973 Roe decision is ignorant of the fact that Abortion on Demand is not a woman’s Right. There is no absolute Right to Choose Abortion on Demand. That is, if you agree with one aspect of the 1973 decision.
Second, for those who rejected the Roe v Wade decision because it opened the flood gates to elective abortions, what was expected if/when the ruling was overturned (aka Dobbs)? Were we prepared to bring back the old statutes that allowed for abortions only when a mother’s life was at risk? Or were we supposed to end all abortions entirely? If Pro-Lifers/Right to Lifers really understood what it meant to overturn Roe v Wade, we would understand that our fight is against all ‘elective’ abortions and not ‘all’ abortions. Standing opposed to all abortions, even for the life of the mother, will accomplish 100% of nothing. However, standing opposed to all elective abortions will end more than 99% of all abortions. And just to be pragmatic, 99% of something is more than 100% of nothing.
Further, in the 1973 decision, the Court failed to address the Right to Life of children in the womb (unborn babies), leading to the needless death of nearly 65 million babies in the womb by the acts of abortion. The Court failed to acknowledge this American holocaust as well as the damage done to millions of women who have post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to the rape they’ve suffered at the hands of abortionists and the knife shoved up their canals to perform an abortion on the baby.
Instead of focusing on the Right to Life of children, the Court focused on the Right to Life of the mother and decided to support only her Right to Choose a physician, who may refer her for an abortion when her life is at risk. As the Court supported plaintiffs’ arguments, they said that women have the right to choose a physician when their life is at risk. The Right to Life of Mothers is not in controversy for either pro-life or pro-choice advocates. The Texas Law even allowed for an abortion when a mother’s life was at risk. However, the Court said (agreeing with plaintiff’s arguments) that the exemption statute was too vague leading to the prosecution of the doctor/patient relationship. Making the exemption statute clear, allowing for an abortion when the mother’s life is at risk, is necessary for any law or constitutional amendment. Yes, women have rights; but so too do babies.
So, while Dobb’s returns this matter to the States, let’s learn from these lessons of Roe v Wade and adopt the basic principles involved in any law or constitutional amendment.
1. There is no absolute right to choose abortion on demand.
2. Elective abortions should be prosecuted according to the rule of law.
3. Any Law or Constitutional Amendment prohibiting elective abortions should include and exemption allowing for an abortion when the mother’s Life is at risk.
These are the lessons from Roe v Wade that we may glean to provide for new laws and amendments to our state and national constitutions.
And now is the time! It’s time to begin the process of amending our State and Federal Constitutions. We the People can begin the process by amending our own State Constitutions before ever beginning the national process of amending the U.S. Constitution. We need to advocate a unified Right to Life Amendment to the Constitution to preserve the Right to Life of children in the womb, and the Right to Life of mothers whose life is at risk. Below is a petition that will help get this process started. Please circulate this within your own community city, county, state, and the country at large.
Pro-Life Bill of Rights
· Whereas the founders of our nation established Liberty under Law, Liberty and Justice for all…
· Whereas the Declaration of Independence established our God given Rights to do what is Right in the sight of God…
· Whereas the first of the Rights of Mankind given to us by our Creator is the Right to Life…
· We the undersigned, advocate an Amendment to the Constitution:
· Declaring…
· That All Elective Abortions are illegal (the Right to Life of children will be preserved);
· That the only exemption for an abortion is the Right to Life of the mother.
· That a woman has no absolute right to choose abortion on demand (Roe v Wade, 1973);
· That a woman has the right choose a physician who may refer her for an abortion when her life is at risk (Roe v Wade, 1973);
· And, that the doctor/patient relationship shall not be liable for prosecution when referrals are made for an abortion to save the mother’s life (Roe v Wade, 1973).
Sadly, this issue is being sidelined by people in the GOP who want to win elections without tackling the abortion issue. They point to the polls (not elections) where it appears that people’s interest is directed more towards economics than abortions. Republican pundits think that they can avoid the issue of abortion while Democrats focus on it, hoping it will go away or the majority of voters won’t care. This inability of some in the GOP to take a stand against abortion, despite the polls, is a part of the social moral problems we face in this nation.
Consider that in any election, the base vote plus the independent/swing vote is added to account for a majority of the vote (50% +1). These GOP pollsters and pundits fail to understand that social liberal/fiscal conservative Republican candidates have nothing in common with social conservative/fiscal progressive Democrats. However, these same Democrats do have something in common with social and fiscal conservative Republicans and represent the ‘swing’ vote in the independent/swing category of voters. This mistake on the part of GOP pollsters and pundits, to include the swing vote, is perpetuated by their absence on the abortion issue, which leads to more electoral failures than successes.
Further, why do these GOP pollsters and pundits think we will lose the argument on abortion. We have the better argument, the better perspective, and Right is on our side. Recall, the idea of moral Rights was a foundation for the philosophical idea of human Rights. And the first of the Rights given to mankind by God was the Right to Life! We can win more elections by standing for what is right while providing leadership to the nation as a whole.
In the end we should make an appeal to the earlier variety of feminists. Back in the day, people like Cady Stanton understood that slaves were not the property of their masters but should be free individuals; that women were not the property of their husbands but partners in a marriage relationship; and that babies were not the property of their mothers to dispose of as they thought best. People like Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony said that Abortion is Child Murder. Susan B Anthony is famous for saying that a woman has a Right to Choose, her elected representatives, not abortions.
So, let’s complete the task before us with State and National Amendments to our Constitution to support the Right to Life for children and their mothers. Let’s follow the principles involved that will lead our nation into a future without child murder. And support those rights that women have to choose a doctor and their elected representatives. In the end, this is a winning issue we must take a stand on, not matter side of the isle you are on.
Comments