copyright by James R Carlson
The Court Deals if the Injustice of Insurrection by Abortion Advocates
Did you ever read the Roe v Wade decision? I have, years ago. I understood then as now that the decision is misrepresented by the media and others in the country. Truth told, the Court never supported a Constitutional Right to Abortion.
Right to Life of the Mother
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) outlined the legal issue that they faced in the infamous Roe v Wade case:
The Texas statutes that concern us here are Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196 of the State's Penal Code.[1] These make it a crime to "procure an abortion," as therein 118*118 defined, or to attempt one, except with respect to "an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." Similar statutes are in existence in a majority of the States.[2]
The “Right to Life of the Mother” was a right established by a long history of law that provided an exemption to the larger set of abortion laws. As we celebrate Mother’s Day today, it is worthy of note that the Right to Life (Pro-Life) movement supports the Right to Life of the Mother. Although medical practice has developed beyond the limitations of the 1970s to save the life of both mother and baby, we still support the Right to Life for the mother when her life is at risk due to pregnancy if abortions are required. This was never in question.
However, plaintiffs argued before the Court that the doctor/patient relationship was threatened by prosecution when referrals for an abortion were made to save a mother’s life:
James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes and 121*121 that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain,…
The Court struck down the exemption statute (Article1196) because it was too vague and ambiguous and then removed the remaining abortion statutes as a result of having no exemption clearly defined:
…Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.
It remains for the State of Texas (and any of the other 50 states) to clearly define the exemption statute in order to prosecute criminal abortions once again by the rule of law.
A Woman’s Right to Choose
The issue of a right to life for the mother was left on the alter of convenience when plaintiffs argued for a right beyond that of the mother’s life.
Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions”; that she was unable to get a “legal” abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy...By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue “on behalf of herself and all other women” similarly situated.
First, Roe was not pregnant when she made her appeal to the Court and therefore had not standing. The reason we had Roe v Wade (Texas) and Doe v Bolton (Georgia) is that political lawyers were seeking a means to affect the issue of abortion politically via the agency of the court and they recruited plaintiffs for this purpose (they found two). This was the beginning of the political activism of the Court with respect to the abortion issue.
Second, Roe never claimed the Right to Life of the Mother as she sought the right to an abortion upon demand (elective abortion). The Pro-Life movement has never supported elective abortions and this is central to the entire Pro-Life movement. Although, an end to 100% of abortions sounds good, it isn’t what the Pro-Life movement stands for. We advocate the total end of all elective abortions.
The Court agrees with the Pro-Life stance. The Court had no interest in establishing an absolute right to abortion:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.
The Court, in majority opinion, went on to clarify their position on an absolute right to choose an abortion (elective abortions):
Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The 154*154 Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
Summary
As today is Mother’s Day, we celebrate the life of both mother and child. The Pro-Life movement is not antagonistic to either but supportive of both. Many people, in fact, seek to adopt the children of mother’s who might choose abortion and help young mothers who carry their baby to full term. Unfortunately, the Pro-Choice movement is not interested in either the life of the mother or the child. The history of abortion with respect to Roe v Wade has made this clear.
Today we are also faced with a politicized Court that makes legislation via the agency of Court decisions (judicial legislation). Clearly, We the People are to be governed by Law, which means we are subject to the legal statutes written by legislatures, not judicial edicts. The Court cannot violate the separation of powers act in the U.S. Constitution by combing judicial and legislative powers into one Court decision. This was done in Roe v Wade nearly 50 years ago and this practice of judicial legislation is supported by left wing liberals today.
In fact, the political nature of the Courts decision in 1973 is the very reason this issue was leaked to the press recently. The decision has a political foundation and it makes sense that this issue was brought before the Country instead of being left to the Court by a leak to the media. However, the extensive political activism of this issue by the left as a Pro-Choice issue, are not supported by the Court’s decision. They are without legal foundation as they seek to continue the political advocacy while misrepresenting what the Court actually said in 1973.
The Court in fact ruled against an absolute right to abortion upon demand, an absolute right to choose, and against elective abortions in general. But when the Court’s decision removed the Texas statutes that governed abortions, it placed abortion into a state of anarchy. Law no longer governs this issue; more often than not, the lies of the left do. This has affected all 50 states and we are in need of a remedy.
If in fact the Court overturns the Roe v Wade decision this year, it will not be the end of the fight for the Right to Life for either the mother or the baby. We need to continue the political and legal fight to stand for their Rights to Life and advocate for better medical procedures when either of their lives are at risk. Many people are willing to adopt unwanted babies and many more are willing to support mothers who are willing to care for their babies as single mothers.
Happy Mother’s Day.
All quotes in italics are taken from:
Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 - Supreme Court 1973
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12334123945835207673>
Komentar