The Roe V. Wade decision of 1973 has stood for 45 years, and now the left is coming unglued over a Justice appointment. If after Kavanaugh is affirmed, and an abortion case does come to the Supreme Court five constitutionalist justices and four “I don’t care about the Constitution” justices who decide as if they are legislators will hear the case. Yet the left has gone nuts over this appointment as they say the Roe v. Wade is settled law. (Justice Ginsberg has stated that she does not need to follow the Constitution in her decisions.) Why is the left so concerned about an overturn of what has been considered settled law passed 7 to 2 in 1973?
Is there something they know that most people don’t know. Could it be that the life of an unborn child was not considered? Could it be that a late second trimester baby has a chance to live and may very well be a person in the womb? Do they think that this 1973 decision was a stretch linking it to the Constitution? Wikipedia, not a source that I site often, does have a great synopsis of the decision: “The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state’s interests in regulating abortions: protecting women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.”
Let’s go further and look at the actual majority and minority opinions. Roe v. Wade 410 US 113
If you took the time to read this, you probability found a very circuitous route and some fancy footwork to get to the decision. In addition, they neglected to make this a two sided decision, addressing all aspects of the fourteenth amendment, particularly section 1 as indicated below. I have highlighted some key parts of the amendment, which by the way was intended to solve and eliminate slavery, that were glossed over in this decision.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Essentially these 1973 justices decided when an unborn is a person and not a person. Does anyone really know when any particular unborn has become a person? By the way, if you examine the fourteenth amendment, you will not find “the right to privacy” mentioned anywhere or connected with “under due process”. Since when does due process, usually in open court, hold a right to privacy?
This decision was a contrived outcome to suit the left, and the opinion was manicured/invented to support the decision. So do you see why when the court has a majority of constitutionalists and if a case comes before them, they may actually follow the fourteenth amendment as written and perhaps the fourth amendment as well. Here is the fourth:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
We now know why the left is apoplectic over this nomination. They have known for 45 years that the Constitution was manipulated to give the left the ability to make abortion the law of the land and prop up “Planned Parent Hood”, whose primary business was and still is abortion.