An Unprecedented Disaster By: Dinesh D’SouzaThe Epoch TimesDecember 6, 2021 The Supreme Court’s decision in the Mississippi abortion case is likely to be one of the landmark cases of the 21st century. Many fascinating things came up during the arguments before the court, but here’s one thing that didn’t come up: the horror of abortion itself. The horror of abortion isn’t merely that a woman kills a child, but that a woman kills her child. From the dawn of history, this has been viewed, in many if not most cultures, as an abomination. Shakespeare puts these words into the mouth of Lady Macbeth, “I have suckled a baby, and I know how sweet it is to love the baby at my breast. But even as the baby was smiling up at me, I would have plucked my nipple out of its mouth, and smashed its brains out against a wall ….” For Shakespeare, this is intended to expose Lady Macbeth’s psychology as pure evil. A woman who would murder her offspring is a scourge on the human race.Perhaps recognizing the sheer baseness of defending abortion, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, attempted to argue against the Mississippi law based on the sanctity of precedent. The legal term for this is stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand.” Roe v. Wade has been recognized as a constitutional right since 1973, so let’s continue to affirm it as a constitutional right going forward.Interestingly enough, the argument for stare decisis or precedent is a conservative one. It relies on the presumptive validity of tradition, of doing today and tomorrow what you did yesterday and the day before that. I once heard a student in my class argue this general position. If an institution has persisted for a very long time, he said, then even if the rationale for it is unknown or obscure, we should accord it a high degree of respect, because its very longevity shows that it must serve some important social purpose.To which my professor replied, destroying the argument in a single sentence, “What about anti-Semitism?” The point is that longevity by itself can’t tell you whether a tradition should be cherished and upheld. There are good and bad traditions. Slavery and segregation are also American traditions that were not merely permitted in society but also upheld by the force of law.With his customary clarity, Justice Clarence Thomas got to the heart of the matter when he raised the question of where the specific abortion right could be found in the Constitution.“If we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about, because it’s written. It’s there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”The simple truth is that there is no abortion right specified in the Constitution. Hence, the argument of the pro-choice camp can be summarized this way: Regardless of the original justification for Roe v. Wade, or even if there is no constitutional basis for the decision at all, nevertheless, it’s a decision, and it has lasted for nearly half a century, and so this court should not overrule it.Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the point that the Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, overturned precedents. He gave as examples Baker v. Carr, which created the basis for one person, one vote; Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to administer so-called Miranda rulings to suspects in criminal custody; and of course, Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed “separate but equal” and ended legal segregation in public schools.The Brown precedent was especially troublesome for the Biden administration because it overturned a precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson, that has stood for more than half a century. Kavanaugh’s point is that if Plessy was wrongly decided, and the Court was right to uproot that longstanding precedent, why shouldn’t this court, if it holds Roe v. Wade to be wrongly decided, uproot it as well?Here, Prelogar insisted that precedents can only be overturned if the court discovers new information unavailable to the court that decided the original case. The difficulty for Prelogar, and the Biden administration, is that the Brown court had no new information in 1954 that the late-19th-century Plessy court lacked. The Brown court regarded segregation as morally wrong—a violation of basic human dignity as well as equal protection under the law—while the Plessy court regarded it as morally permissible.Moreover, who can say that in the abortion case there has been no new information since 1973? The Roe decision was pegged to the concept of “viability,” the condition of the fetus being able to survive outside the womb. But the point of viability has moved up due to scientific advances over the past several decades, and we can reasonably expect that over time it will move up further still.Additionally, while the Roe court muddleheadedly speculated over whether the fetus is a distinct human being, today we can see, through the technology of ultrasound, that the fetus, while attached to the mother, is nevertheless its person, with its heartbeat, its organs, and its distinctive genetic make-up. Conjoined twins too are attached, but there are still two distinctive human beings there; we can’t say that this is a single individual with two heads, four eyes, and 20 toes.For nearly 50 years, we’ve lived with the lies and atrocious arguments of those justifying abortion. From what I saw and heard at the Supreme Court, a clear majority of the justices have had enough. They’re ready to uphold the Mississippi law that would allow states to restrict abortions after 15 weeks. They might even be ready—I sure hope they are—to chop off the head of the snake. It’s time to end Roe v. Wade. |
---|
Archives
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
-
Recent Posts
- Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
- Like a stunned adolescent whose reckless incompetence totaled the family car, the Left seems shocked that America proved so fragile after all.
- BRAVO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE J. ALITO!!!!!
- It would be an understatement to say that celebrities have become unhinged: they have been sent into orbit. Many showed how articulate they are by spouting vulgarities while others threatened to get even with Supreme Court Justices
- IMAGINE A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE RIOT BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM KILLING BABIES.
Top Posts & Pages
- Like a stunned adolescent whose reckless incompetence totaled the family car, the Left seems shocked that America proved so fragile after all.
- DID YOU THINK THAT ROE V. WADE IS A THING OF THE PAST? THINK AGAIN!!!!
- It would be an understatement to say that celebrities have become unhinged: they have been sent into orbit. Many showed how articulate they are by spouting vulgarities while others threatened to get even with Supreme Court Justices
- BRAVO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE J. ALITO!!!!!
- ELECTION FRAUD IN ARIZONA VERIFIED BY AUDIT
- CHOOSING DEATH: THE LEGACY OF ROE
- Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
- 2 ABOUT ME
- THE IMAGE OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE POSES SUCH A THREAT TO ATHEISTS THAT THEY WILL GO TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO DISCREDIT IT
- IMAGINE A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE RIOT BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM KILLING BABIES.
Top Clicks