View source for Ending Legal Abortion in Every State in about a Year

{| class="wikitable"
|[[Forum]] (Articles)
|[[Offer]]
|[[Partners]]
|[[Rules]]
|[[Tips]]
|[[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]
|[[Begin!]]
|[https://family-music-center.square.site Donate]
|}

<span style="color:#0000FF">This forum was created by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) 02:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC) to help prolifers discuss the most effective evidence and legal arguments to include in legislation designed to force courts to address the overwhelming consensus of court-recognized fact finders that babies are people, which requires all states to outlaw abortion, according to the 14th Amendment, as ''Roe'' pointed, which ''Dobbs'' did not challenge. The original post of this article was condensed from "How States Can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts", by Dave Leach. Available as a [https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+states+can+outlaw+abortion+in+a+way+that+survives+courts paperback, Kindle,]</span> or as a [http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf free PDF]. 

----

<span style="color:#0DA">Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote]. Improve it. Critique it. Sign your name with 4 tildes (<nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki>).</span>

----


=The "Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Unanimous Court-Recognized Evidence that Abortion is Murder" Act=

It is the '''fact''' that unborn babies are living human children that makes killing them murder. It’s not what any ''law'' says about it, or even what the Constitution says about it. That’s what leaves Dobbs v. Jackson on the edge of reality, by treating this fact as something for voters to figure out, not on the basis of whether babies are in fact people but on the basis of some “value” they place on little people. 

That '''fact''' is what makes the consensus of court-recognized fact finders a stronger legal reason to end legal abortion than a Life Amendment, and a powerful social reason in the Court of Public Opinion. 	Which makes it insane for prolifers to not even mention this legally dispositive consensus in each and every prolife court case, and every “finding of fact” of prolife legislation!

<center><h2>'''Ending legal abortion everywhere in close to a year'''
<br>(the goal of the following bill language)
<br>'''requires a law whose Findings of Facts: '''
</h2></center>

* '''contain evidence which no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal anywhere:''' that unborn babies are real people – established by the (unanimous) consensus of court-recognized factfinders: juries, expert witnesses, 38 states, judges, and Congress;

* '''present its evidence in a way that is clear  and persuasive to voters,'''  to help them resist judicial and media gaslighting; (See below for “Why court-recognized fact finders persuade Voters”)

* '''address misunderstandings about abortion jurisprudence''' that divide prolifers, intimidate lawyers, and blind judges;

'''AND WHOSE PENALTIES'''

* '''restrict some aspect of abortion substantially enough''' that THEY can't be defended as a mere regulation with some other legitimate government purpose than saving lives. The restriction must be profound enough that its only possible defense is that it saves human lives. That will force courts to address the evidence that babies are fully human;

* '''provide no distractions that let judges rule on some technicality and ignore the evidence that the law would save lives.''' A perfect law that addresses everything from exceptions to contraception multiplies a judge’s opportunity to say “we don’t need to reach the issue of when life begins because the law fails on a lesser issue.” A simple yet substantial restriction, with “findings” that address the legal obstacles, will survive courts, which will get courts out of the way of saving life, which will free lawmakers to work out the challenging details with time to get a comprehensive solution right and with hope that they won’t waste their time; 

* '''list specific penalties for specific situations,''' rather than broadly stated goals such as “babies are to be protected as much as adults”, leaving prosecutors and judges to guess what to punish, or how, in situations where evidence and culpability are different; 

* '''contain a “life of the mother” exception''' whose applicability is clear enough that mothers are not denied life-saving care until doctors are assured by lawyers that said care will not put the doctors in jail; and

'''THE LAW SHOULD ALSO order courts to “expedite” any review,''' “because lives are lost with each day that courts delay”.  

(A grant of expedited review will constitute tacit agreement that babies are people. To deny expedited review a judge would have to claim that lives are NOT lost with each day that courts delay; but there is simply no evidence to support such a claim! No American legal fact-finding authority in 50 years has dared such a claim! SCOTUS, from Roe to Dobbs, claims that even Supreme Court judges are incompetent to know - will a lower court judge claim superior knowledge?! Checkmate!)

More ideas: [[Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating]]



__TOC__

=Findings of Facts Designed to Court-Proof Prolife Laws= 

<span style="color:#0000FF">'''Legislative Findings of Facts''' are the part of some laws which have no penalties, but instead contain principles, facts, or arguments to clarify the intent of the Penalties Section to help judges correctly apply it. This section of some bills may be called “Findings of Facts”, “Legislative Findings”, “Preamble”, etc. Sometimes, as here, it contains facts or legal arguments that refute objections to the law expected in courts, so judges won't overturn it.)  </span>

'''WORD COUNTS:''' Using only the first boldfaced paragraph of each of these 12 Findings, plus the headings after each "Finding #__", will total 347 words. The complete Findings, without footnotes, total 2944 words. For the advantages of including enough information for the Findings to defend themselves, see [[Too Lengthy?]] below. 

====Part 1: The Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders====

=====Finding #1. Evidence of Life is Legally Established.=====

'''Abortion is legally recognizable as murder, which no state is allowed to legalize. According to the consensus of court-recognized,  court-tested Finders of Facts, unborn babies are fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize.''' 

Although Roe v. Wade’s main holding is overruled, Roe stated a hypothetical with which no court has disagreed: “[Prolifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment....If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortionist’s] case, '''of course,''' collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th]Amendment. The [abortionist] conceded as much on reargument.”<ref>''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 156-157 (1973)</ref>

In other words, when we know preborn babies are in '''fact''' fully human children, then killing them is legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize. That '''fact''', independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment, dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime, irregardless of any fence-sitting, indifference, “value judgment”,<ref>“There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment.” Concurrence/Dissent by Scalia, Thomas, White. ''Planned Parenthood v. CASEY,'' 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1992)</ref> or claimed inability to know.<ref>“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973) </ref>

No fact can be more legally established than the fact that “life begins”  at fertilization, being the consensus of every American legal authority who has taken a position, in every category of court-recognized finders of facts: Juries,
<ref>When prolifers blocked abortionists’ doors before 1993, the only seriously disputed fact issue at trial was whether human lives were saved. The earliest juries ruled that they were, and acquitted, so abortionists persuaded judges to stop letting juries hear that defense. Abortionists got so scared of juries thinking babies are people, that when a judge decided to let the jury hear that defense, the abortionist would drop the prosecution. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A law school journal reports: `“After the court ruled that it would allow the [Necessity] Defense to go to the jury, the Women for Women Clinic dropped the prosecution. If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution, which is merely proving the elements of criminal trespass. Rather than risk such a precedent, many clinics prefer to dismiss. In fact, defense counsel have admitted that their intent is to bring the abortion issue back before the United States Supreme Court to consider the very question of when life begins, an issue on which the Court refused to rule in Roe...” (The Cincinnati Law Review footnote analyzes the case of ''Ohio v. Rinear'', No. 78999CRB-3706 (Mun. Ct. Hamilton County, Ohio, dismissed May 2, 1978) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I (Dave Leach) was a defendant in such a trial, where the judge allowed the jury to hear the defense, the abortionist let the case proceed,  and the jury acquitted. ''State v. Brouillette, et al'', Johnson County, Iowa, 1989. 155 of us were arrested January 26, 1989 for blocking the doors of the Emma Goldman clinic in Iowa City, Iowa. Rather than pack all 155 in the court room, 16 of us were tried in the first batch. It was assumed that what happened to them would drive what happened later to the rest; especially since J. Patrick White, the prosecuting county attorney, had told newspapers that if the first 16 were acquitted there is no way he would prosecute the others. <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But after the jury acquitted the first 16, White refused to dismiss, and that is the only reason we have an official court record documenting that the Defense of Justification was the only issue before the jury. The jury didn't say so, but the judge did, in his ruling dismissing the remaining charges.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He wrote that both sides stipulated to (officially agreed about) the facts. “Each Defendant stipulated to his or her identity; to entering and remaining upon public property; and to failing to leave said public property after being notified and requested to vacate by persons whose duty it was to supervise the use and maintenance of this property. By this stipulation, the sole element of the offense of Criminal Trespass which remained to be proven was '''whether each defendant acted without justification.''' The verdict of the jury indicates the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, '''the one essential element of the charge which remained in issue.''' In a trial of the remaining 138 Defendants, [one of the 155 arrested was juvenile and was not charged], a jury would be presented with this identical issue. (So the remaining charges should be dropped by the theory of Issue Preclusion - if Joe is found innocent after doing something, Jack should be after doing the same thing.)”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another such case may be ''Northern Virginia Women's Medical Center v. Balch'', 617 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (4th Cir. 1980) which refers to two unreported cases where “necessity” led to acquittals. But it is not clear whether it was a jury or “bench” trial.</ref> 
Expert witnesses,<ref>See footnote #4: “If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution,” The evidence is presented by expert witnesses – doctors, geneticists, etc. A case widely reported among prolifers is when Elizabeth Tilson, a defendant who blocked an abortion door so mothers couldn’t go inside to kill their babies, flew in a world famous geneticist from France to Judge Paul Clark’s Wichita court. There was no jury, but a “bench” trial over which Clark presided. His lengthy ruling, acquitting Tilson, is reported in Appendix H of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. A paperback is available at Amazon; a free PDF is posted at [http://saltshaker.us www.Saltshaker.us.]   </ref> 
State legislatures, <ref>“At least 38 states”, (enough to enact a Constitutional Amendment), “have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.” Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728 (Ala. 2012) The ruling’s basis: “''State v. Courchesne'', 296 Conn. 622, 689 n. 46, 998 A.2d 1, 50 n.46 (2010) (‘[As of March 2010], at least [thirty-eight] states have fetal homicide laws.’ (quoting the National Conference of State Legislatures, Fetal Homicide Laws (March 2010) (alterations in Courchesne)” </ref> 
Individual judges,<ref>One example is Judge Paul Clark: see footnote 5. Another is Justice Dimond in Alaska:  ''Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska'', 631 P.2d 1073, 1084. See his lengthy statement on page 19-20 of the book cited in footnote 5.  </ref> 
and Congress.<ref>18 U.S.C. 1841(d) “...the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” #7 of these Findings explains why this Personhood statement is as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment, and is NOT mitigated by section (c), as alleged by the National Right to Life Committee.</ref>

No legal authority has affirmed that any unborn baby of a human is not in fact a human person, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.<ref>A careless reading of New York’s repeal of its partial birth ban on January 22, 2019, led to reporting in conservative media  that the new law for the first time positively declares that unborn babies are not “persons”. They report that the new law says “ "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.” But that is the old law that has been there for years, and in context simply means that when the coroner investigates dead bodies found in his county, or in a jail, he will not investigate the bodies of  unborn babies. </ref>
	
No state can keep abortion legal now that this fact is established. This is so obvious that even Roe v. Wade said “of course”, and the lawyer for the abortionists agreed.<ref>If there are 39 witnesses to a murder, should a prosecutor bring forward only two? But legislatures have supported abortion bans with only their own testimony in their Findings. No 37 other states. No Congress. No thousands of uncontradicted expert witnesses. No dozens of juries. Only a trace of the overwhelming evidence for the claim that constitutionally protected “life begins” at fertilization.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For as long as prolifers do not justify their restrictions of abortion with the full range of evidence available from all states, it seems unlikely, indeed not fully rational, that the Supreme Court will end the right of women to take care of their own health for the sake of embryonic pigs and rabbits – which is how human embryos were depicted in the illustration cited by Roe, published in Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. (See Appendix I in the book cited in Footnote #5.)</p>  </ref>

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#1 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

====The Authority of Court-Recognized Facts====

======Finding #2: The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS. ======

'''From Roe through Dobbs, SCOTUS never ruled babies Non-Persons “as a Matter of Law”'''

SCOTUS has  avoided taking a position on whether babies of humans are humans,
<ref>SCOTUS declined to review cases that raised “babies are people” as a reason to outlaw abortion. Not even Mississippi, the defendant in Dobbs v. Jackson, raised that defense of its ban of abortions after 15 weeks. Although the lawmakers added evidence of the humanity of babies in their Findings of Facts, the brief of the Attorney General never gave that as a reason to overturn Roe. Not even in the December 1, 2021 oral arguments, where the AG boldly said, and no one disagreed: abortion is “the purposeful termination of a human life”, “ Roe and Casey...have no basis in the Constitution. They...adopt a right that purposefully leads to the termination of now millions of human lives.” “I think this Court in Gonzales pretty clearly recognized that before viability, we are talking, with unborn life, with a human organism.” Justice Alito added, “the fetus has an interest in having a life”. And yet when Justice Kavanaugh asked him, “And to be clear, you're not arguing that the Court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this Court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion as I understand it, correct?” the AG answered, “Correct, Your Honor.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Since Roe, the Supreme Court has not been presented with a challenge concerning the legal status of the personhood of an unborn human being. Instead, the cases have centered on a multitude of state regulations that are designed to sway a woman’s choice, or chill a physician’s willingness to provide abortion services.” [https://personhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lugosi-The-Constitutionality-of-Personhood.pdf Lugosi-Constitutionality of Personhood]  Well, that’s almost true. SCOTUS has been presented with such challenges, but has declined to rule on them. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The first such challenge was when the ink on ''Roe v. Wade'' was barely dry.  Rhode Island’s law had a strong statement that unborn babies are persons, and strong criminal penalties for  aborting them. ''Doe v. Israel'', 358 F. Supp. 1193 (1973). ''Doe v. Israel'', 1 Cir., 1973, 482 F.2d 156. This Court declined to hear the case. Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Just weeks after Roe  alleged uncertainty about the unborn because “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense”, Rhode Island enacted that recognition. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Doe'' said: “The Rhode Island legislature apparently read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade to leave open the question of when life begins and the constitutional consequences [**12]  thereof.” ''Doe v. Israel'', 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1199 (1973)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rhode Island “established” the fact more than Texas had, in the sense that the Rhode Island legislature and governor made official, in law, what Texas Attorney General Wade had only alleged in court as a fact understood by Texans  without having to put it in a law. District  Judge Pettine didn’t just respond “well, that’s a little more of the ‘establishment’ courts will need before we outlaw abortion again, but that’s still not enough.” He went far beyond SCOTUS, saying all the evidence in the world was irrelevant:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“I neither summarize nor make any findings of fact as to their testimony [about whether unborn babies of human mothers are humans/persons].  To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact.  ... I find it all irrelevant....” ''Doe v. Israel'', 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1197
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If SCOTUS didn’t treat Life as “a question of fact”, but of law, how did doctors and preachers become more qualified to “answer” the “question” than SCOTUS? (See quote in footnote #3.) Roe said the court was “in no position to speculate as to the answer”, not that the answer was irrelevant. Roe said the answer was not only relevant, it was dispositive: once “established”, it must “of course” end legal abortion. (See quote in Finding #1.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Doe continues: “It is true that the Court in Wade and Bolton did not attempt to decide the point ‘when human life begins.’ No reading of the opinions, however, can be thought to empower the Rhode Island legislature [alone] to ‘defin[e] some creature as an unborn child, to be a human being and a person from the moment of its conception.’”   ''Doe v. Israel''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Since when does a state legislature need SCOTUS to “empower” them to establish facts? Normally courts respect findings of facts by legislatures. Doe continues: “Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton can [not] be nullified by the simple device of a legislative declaration or presumptions contrary to the court's holding.”  ''Doe v. Israel''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Except that ''Roe’s'' holding was conditioned on no court-recognized legal authority establishing precisely the fact which Rhode Island established. And the Rhode Island legislature is a court-recognized finder of facts. The only thing Roe didn’t clarify was how much establishment, by how many fact finders, was “enough” establishment to satisfy the court. But now that issue is gone. There can be no more “establishment” than the uncontested consensus of every court-recognized fact finder in all five categories of court-recognized fact finders. If ''Roe'' was correct, that “establishment” was possible, then “establishment” has been accomplished.  </ref> 
but it was never true that SCOTUS made that FACT irrelevant, as lingering lower court precedent states.
<ref>Finding #2 responds to the excuse that judges made up to dodge evidence of Life: that Roe made “when life [in fact] begins” irrelevant by ruling “as a matter of law” that babies are not real people. It began in 1973 with Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193: “To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. ... I find it all irrelevant....” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This became the excuse for judges to not even let juries hear evidence that the babies were people who were saved by the defendants in thousands of abortion prevention trials - see City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993). 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;State Supreme Courts claimed that Roe made abortion “constitutionally protected”, leaving babies non-persons “as a matter of law”, so evidence in jury trials that lives were saved by blocking the killing doors was irrelevant. Therefore juries shouldn’t be allowed to hear that defense of the defendants, even when that fact question was the only contested issue of the trial. Since Dobbs, abortion is no longer “constitutionally protected”, but SCOTUS has still not refuted the idea that babies are nonpersons “as a matter of law”. Therefore these lingering lower court precedents – there are many of them – need to be addressed. See Appendix F of the book linked in Footnote 5, for analysis of several rulings, showing their inconsistency with SCOTUS rulings. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cases examined in Appendix F and a statement from each: “The rationale utilized by ‘[t]he majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm which can justify illegal conduct.’”  ''City of Wichita v. Tilson'', 855 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1993).
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Appellants '''may not criminally interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights by others,''' and then escape punishment for their criminal conduct by asserting the defense of necessity....'''A pregnant woman's decision to exercise her right under the Constitutions''' of the United States and of the State of California to terminate a pregnancy is not and cannot be held to be a ‘significant evil.’”  ''People v. Garziano'' 230 Cal. App. 3d 242, 244 (1991)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“If the legislature cannot delegate a ‘veto power’ to the patient’s ... spouse .... we think it unlikely that a state court could delegate such a ‘veto power’ to strangers [the jury], to be exercised in such an obstrusive manner.” ''Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage'', 631 P.2d 1073, 1080 n. 15 (1981)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“...the ‘injury’ prevented by the acts of criminal trespass is not a legally recognized injury.” ''People v. Krizka'', 92 IILApp.3d 288, 48 III.Dec. 141, 416 N.E.2d 36.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not a legally recognized harm, and, therefore, prevention of abortion is not a legally recognized interest to promote.”  ''State v. Sahr'', 470 N.W.2d at 191-192.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“...the justification defense [is still] unavailable because abortion is lawful by virtue of the United States Constitution.” ''Allison v. City of Birmingham'', 580 So. 2d 1377 (1991)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“...the defense of necessity asserted here cannot be utilized when the harm sought to be avoided (abortion) remains a constitutionally protected activity and the harm incurred (trespass) is in violation of the law.”  ''State v. O’Brien'', 784 S.W.2d 187, 192 (1989)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Because the harm sought to be prevented is not recognized as an injury under the law, the defense of necessity is insufficient '''as a matter of law''' and the court properly refused to allow the defendant to raise it.” ''State v. Clarke'', 24 Conn.App. 541, 590 A.2d 468, cert. denied 219 Conn. 910, 593 A.2d 135 (1991);   </ref>

In 1973, Roe said “the judiciary...is in no position to speculate” about “when life begins”.<ref> ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973) </ref> Roe was aware of the testimony of only one fact finder: Texas Attorney General Wade. (Although Dobbs later corrected Roe’s history with 50 examples of earlier state laws and court rulings.
<ref>See Appendix A, with footnotes #69-119, DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265, 597 US _ (2022) </ref>)

In 1982, conservative justices Scalia, White, and Thomas wrote “There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment.” ''Casey'', 1982.
<ref>Concurrence/Dissent by Scalia, Thomas, White. ''Planned Parenthood v. CASEY'', 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1992)  </ref> By then several juries and expert witnesses had spoken, but not, before then, state legislatures or Congress. 

In 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson said “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests”.<ref>''DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION'' 597 US _ (2022) </ref>

No longer does SCOTUS say it has no capacity to know if babies of people are people. But it declines to address the issue, leaving the consensus of fact finders unchallenged. 

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#2 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #3. Courts Accept Legislative Statements of Facts===== 

SCOTUS must accept legislative findings of facts that are not obviously irrational. “..the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed...not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators....” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938).
<ref>''US. v. Caroline'' adds that the evidence in support of a law doesn’t have to be overwhelming: “....the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. ...But by their very nature such inquiries, where the legislative judgment is drawn in question, must be restricted to the issue whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it.” ''U.S. v. Carolene Products'', 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This explains the “rational basis” test by which courts evaluate laws that restrict non-fundamental rights. When rights are called “fundamental”, then “strict scrutiny” is the courtroom standard, by which judges are more skeptical of claims made about facts by court-recognized fact finders. ''Roe'' ruled that abortion is a “fundamental” right in 1973, but it lost that status in 1982 with ''Casey'', and ''Dobbs'' blew away the last traces of it. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The evidence of court recognized fact finders, the power of legislative findings, and the general power of laws to shape court rulings, shouldn’t be necessary to inform judges as if they were otherwise helplessly ignorant. The fact that this evidence and argument has not been before the Supreme Court does not excuse justices for ruling as if they had never heard of it. True, it is considered unethical for judges to investigate facts on their own; they should normally limit their review of facts to those facts presented by the parties to the case, where the other side has an opportunity to respond.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But even without formal presentations of this evidence, the fact that little people are still people falls under “common knowledge”, of which judges frequently, and quite ethically, take judicial notice.     Besides, this kind of evidence has been presented in court - in cases which the Supreme Court chose not to hear. And even those cases which SCOTUS turned down placed legal briefs in the record which were read by at least some of the clerks of the justices. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So the justices are not that innocent. Their ignorance is willful. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Still, prolifers share some of the blame for tiptoeing around ''Casey'' so long, which told states that no abortion restriction could be “constitutional” that had for any part of its purpose, the reduction of abortion. Thus states kept evidence out of court that babies of people are people, for most of abortion’s half century. And judges think it is unethical to rule according to evidence submitted by neither party to a case. (They way they ruled in ''Roe''.)</ref>

Besides the court-recognized fact finding authority of legislatures, courts must conform their rulings to laws until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional. No court has declared 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d) or any of the 38 similar state laws unconstitutional, despite many challenges.
<ref>A statement in Roe could be taken to minimize the personhood assertions in “unborn victims of violence” laws as being merely to serve the interests of the parents: “...some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. ...In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973)  An example of a “wrongful death” just three months before the Roe ruling is when a car hit a Greyhound bus, killing both mother and her 8-1/2 month unborn child. [http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass354.html MassCases.com]. But Roe’s reasoning doesn’t apply for two reasons: 28 of  the 38 states with “unborn victims of violence” laws explicitly state the justification is the humanity/personhood of the unborn, and (2) Roe was talking about parents bringing civil lawsuits against people whose negligence had caused the deaths of their unborn children, in which case the parents’ interest was indeed a factor. Unborn victims of violence laws are different: they are ''criminal'' charges, brought by county or state prosecutors, to vindicate the states’ interest in ''protecting life,'' without asking the parents for permission first. And the  penalties for killing an unborn baby are the same in 38 states as the penalties for killing the mother. This is not like the parents’ interest in the loss of some inanimate object, like a refrigerator. Or a dog. </ref>

To do so would require the Court to positively affirm that human life does not begin until much later, which no legal authority has done, and for which no evidence exists.

<references />
----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#3 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

====Part 2: the Power of Personhood====

=====Finding #4. Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life=====


Detectable heartbeats and brain waves are evidence that a person has not yet died, throughout 
state and federal law.
<ref>[https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/the-challenges-of-defining-and-diagnosing-brain-death HopkinsMedicine.org]</ref> 
Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that a person has begun to live. 

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#4 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #5. Voters should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, in the same sense that legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murder laws.=====

But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of an unwanted group of humans completely unregulated. That interpretation of Dobbs’ holding is premised on a “mistake of fact”, which is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.
<ref>Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, described ''Roe v. Wade'' as “precedent upon precedent”, and yet when asked by a Democrat about a precedent that ''Democrats'' don’t like, he explained that discovery of a “mistake of facts” is one of the “Stare Decisis” grounds for overturning precedents. Here is an excerpt: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Whitehouse''': “The hypothetical problem that I have has to do with an appellate court which makes a finding of fact. Asserts a proposition of fact to be true. And upon that proposition hangs the decision that it reaches. The question is, what happens when that proposition of fact...turns out not to be true?” ...
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Kavanaugh''': “[This is] wrapped up in a question of precedent and Stare Decisis. And one of the things you could look at, one of the factors you could look at, how wrong was the decision, and if it is based on an erroneous factual premise, that is clearly one of the factors... Mistakes of history. Sometimes there are mistakes of history in decisions and mistakes of fact.” Day 3 of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Beginning at from 4:52:11 to 4:53:50 of the video posted at [http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSyWoxGbpFg Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings]</ref>

The “Mistake of Fact” that is the premise of letting voters decide whether to continue judge-mandated genocide according to the “value” they place on little people is that that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant. That premise was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.
<ref>See the quotes from these three cases in Finding #2.  </ref>

That is an erroneous factual premise. The fact that unborn babies of humans are humans is neither unknowable nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive. The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that Dobbs holding interpretation, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.
	
To select this one invidious [unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings - unborn babies - to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected; for example, in America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Republicans, undocumented immigrants. 

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#5 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #6: The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for some to grasp. But what distinguishes us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known pre-conscious stage. =====

Part of Roe’s definition of “person” was “infused with a soul”.
<ref>“These disciplines  [philosophy, theology, civil law, canon law] variously approached the question [of  “when life begins”] in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 US 113, 133. </ref> 
Roe thus affirmed the belief of most of society, a belief logically demanded by the common knowledge that humans are distinguished from animals by consciousness which features a capacity for choices at variance with physical needs: to love, as defined by John 15:13, to sacrifice one's interests for another.
<ref>John 15:13  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  </ref> 
And conversely, to destroy one’s own body.
<ref>2 Samuel 17:23  And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Matthew 27:5  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. </ref>

This, along with self awareness and the capacity to choose between good and evil
<ref>Joshua 24:15  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. </ref>
– to behave either as an angel or as a demon, can’t be explained by any known physical process. These differences justify legal protection of humans beyond protections of animals. 

Since “infused with a soul” is a common definition of “person” besides being Roe’s definition, and a “soul” without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined, the consensus of fact finders is, in effect, that abortion kills babies with conscious souls.

Souls have no known pre-conscious stage. The lack of any physical explanation for a conscious soul rules out any reason to infer immaturity of consciousness from physical immaturity, and is consistent with the report in Luke 1:44 that a baby at 6 months heard a righteous voice [and/or felt the righteous Presence of God] and responded with joy,
<ref>Luke 1:39  And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40  And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41  And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42  And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44  For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Roe v. Wade “opened the door” to a Bible study of abortion as part of our national debate, by claiming that the reason “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” because “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” since, after all, doctors and preachers can’t agree: “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It's not just that ''Roe'' "opened the door" by a technical legal principle that lawyers use in court to get around a judge's "in limine" order to not say certain words or offer certain evidence, kind of a "loophole" around the 1st Amendment prohibition of establishing a religion.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Roe'' couldn't legalize abortion without neutralizing somehow the concern that babies of humans might turn out to be humans. Justice Blackmun understood there are two sources of authority on that issue: medicine, which documents that unborn babies have physical human bodies, and theology, which documents that unborn babies have souls made in the Image of God. That is why ''Roe'' devoted many pages of selective evidence and tortured logic to justify its conclusion that doctors and preachers can't agree, so how can mere Supreme Court Justices know? (For their exact words, see Finding #1, Footnote #3.) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The most recent Christian that they consulted was Thomas Aquinas who died in 1274 AD! Most important, they didn’t consult God! One citation to one Bible verse is in one footnote, followed by not an analysis but an insinuation. So to patch up SCOTUS’ confusion about whether God can agree with Himself, you can find a prolife Bible study in Appendix E of the book cited in footnote #5.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What was Blackmun thinking, to paint doctors and preachers as greater authorities than himself on the dispositive fact question in abortion policy, and then to torture historical facts to fantacize serious disagreement? What ''Roe'' was correct about, and that many prolifers today are incorrect about, is that leaving out the Biblical evidence really does leave prolifers with an unnecessarily weak argument. Let's admit it, it really is hard to grasp the full humanity of a single fertilized egg. I didn't come by the conviction automatically or naturally; I had to study and believe Scripture until my incredulity over protecting such a tiny little thing melted away. I am far from alone. But the "personhood focus" of the Scripture is not on the physical, but on the soul. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Why will Bible believers give the public every other reason for saving unborn lives than the one that was strong enough to persuade them?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;50 years, and mass murder of babies is still fully legal in almost every state! So much evil runs free, after God is censored and then forgotten! This really is about more than "just" infanticide. It's about every other political issue about which God's views are clear. And it's not "just" about the future and survival of our nation. It's about Heaven and Hell. Not just for others, either. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Footnote #3 of Finding #12 for a discussion of the constitutionality of quoting Bible verses in a bill of a state legislature. </ref>
a response not everybody chooses, indicating that the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth. 

Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”. 

Without such a line, there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. No baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary.        

The failure of some to grasp the humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of quite a number of distinct groups of born persons.

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#6 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

====Part 3: Myth Busters====

=====Finding #7. Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a Constitutional Amendment, which with the 14th Amendment, requires all states to outlaw abortion.=====
 
Congress established in 2004 that: “‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’...means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). This fact is not diminished by clause (c) which does not “permit [authorize] the prosecution of any person for...an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained.…”
<ref>Finding #7 refutes the official position 19 years ago of prolifers and Republican Congressmen that 1841(c) robs clause (d) of any power to undermine Roe. “By its express terms, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not apply to, nor in any way affect nor alter, the ability of a woman to have an abortion.” - House Judiciary Committee report, 2/11/2004 [https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/unbornvictims/UVVAHJCreport2004.pdf NRLC.org]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal) ...It is well established that unborn victims laws (also known as ‘fetal homicide’ laws) do not conflict with the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion decrees (Roe v. Wade, etc.). The state laws mentioned above have had no effect on the practice of legal abortion.” - Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 4/1/2004 nrlc.org.  [https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/keypointsuvva NRLC.org]  </ref>

A law imperfectly aligned with facts does not block future lawmakers from correcting deficiencies, and states don’t need Congress’ “permission” to obey the 14th Amendment. 
The reason they have had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in their authority to establish dispositive facts, but  because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited them to establish what Roe said once “established” would “of course” require the end of legal abortion. 

Not only is the 2004 law unmitigated evidence of life strong enough to “collapse” legal abortion by itself, but it would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.
<ref>This rejects the emphasis on getting “personhood” amendments to constitutions as if that must be done before anything else can be effective. More personhood amendments can only help. But there are already enough – 38 states and Congress – to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. </ref>
No other Constitutional Amendment is relied on for evidence of a fact. An Amendment can bind courts. But establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court will do that, and will also make society at peace with outlawing infanticide. 

[Each state should add a similar point about its own “unborn victims of violence” law.]

<references />
----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#7 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #8: Roe and Dobbs agree: All Humans are “Persons”.=====

Neither Dobbs nor Roe distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”.
<ref>Although the second paragraph of Finding #8 quotes ''Roe'' as defining “persons” as “recognizably human”,  ''Roe v. Wade'' encouraged the myth that not all humans are people by saying “...the [lawyer for the babies] conceded on reargument52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. ...the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”54 410 U.S. 113, 157 (1973)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The apparent new legal distinction between “human” and “person” was clear enough for much hand-wringing in prolife literature, culminating in the founding of  ([http://personhood.org PersonhoodUSA]) whose “Strategy” category begins with a legal thesis arguing for treating the two words as synonymous. (https://personhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lugosi-The-Constitutionality-of-Personhood.pdf)  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The thesis observes: “Justice Stevens, [in ''Casey''] in concurrence with the majority, correctly observed that there has never been a single dissent (let alone a majority opinion) by any Justice on the fundamental issue decided in Roe that the fetus was not a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ''Planned Parenthood v. CASEY'', 505 U.S. 833, 913 (1992)  the thesis continues: “Justice Blackmun made the same point in Casey, and added that even the Solicitor General in oral submissions before the Court did not question the constitutional non-personhood status of the unborn child.” (p. 932)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Blackmun’s actual statement in Casey overstates his own statements in ''Roe'', (which Blackmun authored), in two ways. First, he calls what he quotes a “holding”, meaning the essential reasoning in support of the ruling, which seems a bit strong; surely it is “dicta”, meaning not essential support of the ruling. (See discussion of the difference at [[https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/holding-or-dicta/Holding or Dicta]) Second, what he quotes is not a positive statement, being in the context of other statements that judges aren’t qualified to know. Here is Blackmun’s statement in Casey, which the PersonhoodUSA thesis summarizes:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“No Member of this Court - nor for that matter, the Solicitor General, ... has ever questioned '''our holding in Roe that an abortion is not ‘the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.'''’ 410 U.S., at 159 . Accordingly, a State's interest in protecting fetal life is not grounded in the Constitution. Nor, consistent with our Establishment Clause, can it be a theological or sectarian interest. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obtetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 778, 747 , (1986) (STEVENS, J., concurring). It is, instead, a legitimate interest grounded in humanitarian or pragmatic concerns.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To see how inappropriately Blackmun called this a “holding”, and how he exaggerates its definiteness, here is the statement in Roe containing that phrase. Notice it is merely saying “we wouldn’t have legalized abortion had we known babies are people which makes killing them murder”. It is ''not'' a positive statement that babies are ''not'' people so killing them is ''not'' murder, because Roe elsewhere says “IF it is established that babies are people then of course the 14th Amendment doesn’t permit killing them” and “if doctors and preachers can’t agree when life begins, how can a few judges be expected to know?” (Not ''Roe’s'' exact words. For ''Roe'' wording, see Finding #1 and footnote #3.) Now with that introduction, here is ''Roe’s'' quote which Blackmun later elevated into a “holding” and into a positive statement: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Indeed,...we  would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the  termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.”  – ''Roe v. Wade'' at 159.  </ref>

Dobbs cites the belief that “a human person comes into being at conception” without distinguishing between the two words.
<ref>Unfortunately many prolifers have thought Roe created a distinction which Roe did not. The myth that proof that babies are humans falls short of proving they are “persons” made prolifers fail to appreciate how overwhelming the consensus is of court-recognized finders of facts, that all unborn babies “at all stages of gestation” have 14th Amendment protection. The false impression that that isn’t enough evidence yet to topple legal abortion kept many prolifers from supporting legislation that would have challenged legal abortion with the overwhelming evidence we already had, until we could pass more “personhood laws” and add “babies are persons” to the U.S. Constitution. 
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The assumption that Roe ruled that not all humans count as “persons” protected by the 14th Amendment led prolifers to think the consensus of fact finders that babies are humans didn’t count as evidence that would trigger Roe’s “collapse” clause. But the quibble of Roe was not whether babies are “persons” or merely “humans”, but whether very young babies depicted in Dorland’s fraudulent Illustrated Medical Dictionary as indistinguishable from pig fetuses are “recognizably human”. To see those illustrations, and where they are cited in Roe, and to read some of the controversy about their fraudulent origins that was discovered when they were first published a century ago, see Appendix I of the book cited in Footnote #5.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Perhaps this misunderstanding is less needed now that Dobbs has “repealed” Roe, which has supposedly separated “persons” and “humans”. Unfortunately not every lie pioneered by Roe has been executed and buried. So leaving this unclarified will probably tempt judges to gaslight voters. </ref>

Roe v. Wade equated the time an unborn child becomes “recognizably human” with the time the child becomes a “person”: “These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” 410 U.S. 113, 133(1973)

See also Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic...This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.” Steinberg v. Brown 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”.        

The word “persons” in the 14th Amendment means all who are IN FACT humans. 
Had it been only for those who are legally recognized as human, every deprivation of fundamental rights would be “constitutional” so long as a law or ruling questions whether its victims are “persons in the whole sense”. 

“To say that the test of equal protection should be the ‘legal’ rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue. For the Equal Protection Clause necessarily limits the authority of a State [or its judges] to draw such ‘legal’ lines as it chooses.” Glona, 391 U.S. 73, 75 (1968)

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#8 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #9.SCOTUS never denied that state personhood laws are strong evidence in an abortion case.=====

SCOTUS never said Personhood Laws are Impotent.  SCOTUS only said a personhood law by itself, without penalties, can’t generate a case. 

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 U.S. 490 (1989) did not say Missouri's personhood law had no power to topple Roe, but only “...until... courts have applied the [personhood] preamble to restrict appellees’ [abortionists] activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning.” - Webster, p. 491. (First paragraph)

Similarly, Dobbs v. Jackson did not address whether Mississippi’s clear “personhood” declarations called for outlawing abortion in every state, because those declarations were not applied to any challenge to murdering those persons before 20 weeks, and in oral arguments, Missouri’s AG explicitly denied he was asking SCOTUS to outlaw abortion. The issue of whether babies are people who should never be murdered, at any age, was not before the court. 

Webster explained the principle: “It will be time enough for federal courts to address the meaning of the [Personhood statement] should it be applied to restrict the activites of [the abortionists] in some concrete way.” Id at 506.

Far from treating a single state personhood law as impotent, SCOTUS said that were it coupled with a clear penalty, that “will be time enough to reexamine Roe, and to do so carefully”. Concurrence by O'Conner, Id. at 526. How much more the uncontradicted findings of 38 states are enough support for any abortion restriction.
----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#9 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #10. “Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions=====

Evidence of Life is not disproved by an “exception...for the purpose of saving the life of the mother” and/or by not charging the mother with being a “principal or an accomplice” to murder, as Roe’s footnote 54 is generally interpreted.
<ref>Although Roe is officially “overruled” by Dobbs v. Jackson, not every lie in it has been dislodged from prolife legal thinking, and there are still prolife lawmakers who are afraid to support any bill that fails to save every baby, believing that will be taken by baby killers as evidence that prolifers don’t really believe babies are fully human. This Finding is for them.  </ref> 
N. 54 was part of a 65 page search for some explicit statement by fact finders; Roe alleged that there were none, although Dobbs later corrected that flawed history. Had Roe found explicit statements, that would have satisfied SCOTUS, so far as we can determine from reading Roe.

Although the ideal of law is equal protection of all humans, human law is as imperfect as humans. The very legal, political, and Biblical necessity of “innocent until proved guilty” illustrates the inability of human courts to equally protect every human, without that inability proving crime victims are not fully human!    
    
Legal reasons to prosecute abortionists but not moms are (1) to get moms to testify against abortionists, and (2) the greater ease for juries of imputing culpability to adult doctors than to mothers suffering varying degrees of youth, deception (by culture, schools, pastors, and judges) and pressure (by family and fathers). Legal and moral reasons for a “life of the mother” exception are that (1) while babies have a fundamental right to live, so do mothers; and (2) while we are inspired by people who give their lives for others, we can’t require them to by law. Even our Good Samaritan laws, requiring people at accident scenes to help, are sparse and inconsistent.

It would be hypocritical to charge aborting moms with being accessories to murder, without first charging judges. The degree to which laws fail to give “equal protection” to all humans is no evidence of the degree to which people are not humans. Such a legal theory is absurd, unknown outside Footnote 54, cannot be taken seriously, and certainly merits no attention as it faults laws for being no better than is humanly possible. 

<references />
----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#10 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

====Part 4: Conclusions====



=====Finding #11. The 14th Amendment Requires This State, as every state, to Thoroughly Outlaw Abortion.  Restrictions of abortions to save mothers cannot be reviewed by strict scrutiny, even though the safety of mothers is a fundamental right, because the safety of babies is an equally fundamental right. Legislatures can best delineate the most life-saving balance of harms.=====

[Restrictions can't be reviewed by Strict Scrutiny because the safety of babies is an equally fundamental right:
<ref>Footnote: The North Dakota Supreme Court on March 16, 2023 shot down a “trigger law” (passed in 2007, whose outlawing of abortion was set to be “triggered” by SCOTUS repeal of Roe) because doctors worried that they could not save mothers by killing their babies without uncertain consequences in court. Legislatures always have a moral responsibility to minimize legal uncertainties, (with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”, Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But courts also have a moral responsibility to not add to any unavoidable uncertainties.  (Laws should not be applied or interpreted in a way that produces  an “absurd result” when a rational alternative is possible. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission,  306 U.S. 493 (1939)  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The North Dakota court confused matters by reviewing the law by Strict Scrutiny, (a restriction of a fundamental right must be the least restriction possible to achieve a compelling government interest), by calling the safety of mothers a fundamental right while ignoring the fundamental right of babies to life. See the North Dakota ruling at [https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/North-Dakota-Supreme-Court-Order-PI.pdf North Dakota Supreme Court Order]/
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In Iowa, an amicus brief of “Non-Iowa Abortion Care Providers” submitted in the review of an injunction against Iowa’s 2018 Heartbeat Law made the same argument, and added testimonies of doctors  in neighboring states with similarly allegedly vague “life of the mother” exceptions. They moaned about leaving their patients suffering developing emergencies to go out into the hall to consult lawyers by phone to see if they could save their patients without going to jail. Because these testimonies were submitted in an amicas rather than a trial court, they could not be cross examined to establish whether their cases were true “life of the mother” situations, not to mention to verify that their medical credentials qualify them to provide better emergency care than just abortion, and that their medical records are without scandal and fraud. See the brief at [http://iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18325/briefs/5800/embedBrief Brief of non-Iowa Abortion Provider]. Will that brief become the reason for killing Iowa’s heartbeat law? We will know when the Court rules in June. This is written in mid-April.)</ref>]
 
The indecision of judges over whether babies of humans are humans, or their failure to grasp their humanity, does not neutralize the consensus of court recognized fact finders who have taken a position that babies are fully human – a  vote to “abstain” does not cancel a “yes” vote. Therefore the consensus of Fact Finders who have taken a position is unanimous and uncontradicted, that babies are fully human “persons”. That makes abortion legally recognizable as killing innocent human beings, which makes a single abortion legally recognizable as murder and mass abortions legally recognizable as genocide/infanticide, which was never constitutionally protected nor legal, but is what even Roe correctly said must require abortion’s legality to end. 

No judge can squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal because to the extent judges support what everyone now knows are the worst crimes, there remains no reason for judges. This state faces greater constitutional liability from delaying compliance with the 14th Amendment by thoroughly outlawing abortion, than it faces by taking corrective constitutional action in advance of indecisive courts.

This state must, as must every state, comprehensively outlaw abortion, because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other.
<ref>Dobbs went to a lot of trouble to show that the right to murder your own baby is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” so therefore the Constitution doesn't protect it. Indeed it does not, but not for that reason. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 14th Amendment demonstrated the irrelevance of “deeply rooted in history” by its creation for the purpose of ending slavery, an institution more “deeply rooted in” the ''whole world’s'' “history” than any other. The reason conservatives like precedents from America’s first century is because they were closer to the Bible. Indeed, that is a good reason – and the  only reason slavery ended. But the Bible is a safer subject of our admiration than the history of humans however closer to the Bible. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is mind boggling that Dobbs never once mentioned ''the right of a baby to live'' “in this Nation’s history”. The right of babies to live was certainly “deeply rooted in history”, but again, that’s not why the 14th Amendment protects it. The 14th Amendment protects the right of babies to live because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other. The 14th Amendment put a “full stop” to the idea that a long history of tyranny is the reason to let tyranny continue till Jesus comes.  </ref>
It made irrelevant whether their destroyers “rely” on destroying them.
<ref>Casey (1992) came up with a new excuse for infanticide: moms had come to “rely” on it. They had “reliance interests”. But slave owners had come to “rely” on slavery too, and the 14th Amendment had no mercy for ''them''.  </ref>
The only possible way to keep baby murder legal would be to repeal the 14th Amendment, returning to states the power of majorities to tyrannize minorities. Of course, that would make slavery legal again. 

The prohibition of tyranny over any class of humans  by any other has even greater authority than that of the Constitution: it is also the command of all true religion.
<ref>The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says Congress can’t “establish”, religion, which originally meant  forcing people to attend and give to a particular church denomination. It didn’t stop states from “establishing” their own Christian denomination, and in fact most states did, when the 1st Amendment was passed. But since then, most if not all states have adopted the same prohibition into their own constitutions. And even if they hadn’t, the 14th Amendment gives federal courts jurisdiction over states to protect the “Freedom of Religion” of all citizens. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Quoting Scripture in a bill will surely be accused of violating these principles. But it invokes “True Religion”. What worshiper of a non-Biblical religion will go to court and say their religion is discriminated against because only “true” religions are endorsed? Remember that courts even classify atheism as a “religion”. ([https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1318/atheism 1st Amendment & Atheism]) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And what worshiper even of a religion which supports tyranny of one people group over another, such as the Hindu “caste system” or Islam’s jihad against “disbelievers”, will go in an American court and demand that legislatures equally endorse religious teachings which are in reality incitement to what our laws identify as crime?  (Compare Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990) with Deuteronomy 13:1-5 which penalizes not just believing but “serving” other gods. We can believe cruel hogwash, but believing crime is religious doesn’t exempt us from its penalties.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Notice that the Bible cites in this Finding are called “examples”. This deliberately implies that the writings of other religions probably contain similar principles. I don’t know if they do, but this implication mitigates any exclusive “establishment” of Bible-based faiths. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So why suffer all this drama? What makes this acknowledgment of the Bible as endorsing the 14th Amendment worth the negative attention we may expect?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First, because it is absolutely true. The Bible, and the 14th Amendment, equally condemn what the Bible calls “respect of persons” which is what courts call “discrimination”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also first, because acknowledging God Who decides success now and eternity later is a smart policy.  Every threat to our nation is caused by forgetting God, and when we remember God, censoring God – and is healed by returning to God.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Second, because 71% of American citizens believe the Bible is the Word of God; 55% believe it is without error. ([https://sotb.research.bible/ Bible Research]) Showing its support for what we are doing will increase their confidence that it is the right thing to do. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Third, because churches generally regard “politics” as so spiritually unimportant that action information should not even be available on church premises except occasional mentions by occasional pastors. This attitude is encouraged by Christian political activists who prohibit public acknowledgment of the Scriptures that are often the real reason for their positions. God is thereby censored, in those forums where voters decide whether to pattern our laws after the principles of Heaven or of Hell, by both churches and Christian political activists. “If my people who are called by My Name, will...turn from their wicked ways....” 2 Chronicles 7:14.</ref>
For example, Exodus 12:49, Romans 10:12, Colossians 3:11.

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#11 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #12. Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable. =====

Any judge or court which attempts to block this state's effort to bring its laws into conformity with the 14th Amendment violates Dobbs v. Jackson, interferes with this state’s compliance with the Constitution, and is an accessory to genocide according to the uncontradicted consensus of court-recognized fact finders. 

Any state judge interfering with this state’s obligation to obey the 14th Amendment obligation to protect its unborn citizens from abortion is guilty of exercising the legislative function, in order to perpetuate genocide through an unconstitutional ruling, which exceeds the judicial powers given by the state Constitution, which is Malfeasance in Office, a ground of impeachment.
<ref>Legislatures have considerable untapped potential for restraining their activist courts when they become confused about which branch of government they are. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, any legislature is well within its constitutional authority to prohibit any district court from invalidating a law – only a supermajority of the Supreme Court should be allowed to do it, and only within 90 days. After they do, the legislature should be able, within the next year, to compel the attendance of judges under their jurisdiction to discuss and debate, with specified legislators in a public hearing, the constitutional justification for [or necessity of] that judicial exercise of the legislative function. A supermajority of the legislature might then overturn the ruling, and the final verdict will be made by very well informed voters at the next election. To see these ideas actually drafted into a bill, see [[Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating]]  </ref>

Should any federal judge so interfere, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action.
<ref>For example, see   at [http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~schnably/GringrichContractWithAmerica.pdf “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution”].  (sic) </ref>  

<references />


----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#12 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=More Stuff=

==Why court-recognized fact finders Persuade Voters while Binding Judges==

===Juries.===

The reason juries can “establish” these truths with the kind of authority that is acceptable to whole societies is that unlike public opinion surveys or petitions, which are normally not admissible evidence of facts in court, we test jurors for impartiality and educate them with the most qualified expert witnesses we can find. And the education of jurors does not end with a 500 word article. It continues until both sides run out of evidence. Which can take all day, all week, or even all year. Juries contribute impartiality, and commitment to study as long as necessary, to our search for Truth.

Unfortunately when states defend their abortion restrictions in court, they have not, so far, cited the consensus of juries in those few early abortion prevention trials in which judges allowed juries to hear the Necessity Defense (the defendants’ action was necessary in order to save lives ) and juries acquitted because the defendants were saving  lives. This is a powerful resource which prolifers need to use. In both kinds of courts - of  Law, and of Public Opinion.

===Expert witnesses.===

The reason expert witnesses testifying in court records are more persuasive to whole societies than experts outside court is that in court, (1) the very top experts that the litigants can afford are called, and (2) those experts are scrutinized by the top experts called by the opposing side. 
That is a standard that news reporters make a show of meeting, but reporters will (1) talk to a source for an hour and select maybe two sentences for a quote, (2) take the quote as far out of context as necessary to suit the prejudices of the reporter, (3) get the quote wrong, (4) make no public record available of all that was said so readers can double check the accuracy of the report, and (5) cram all that into 300-1,000 words. 

Judges at least write a summary of the proceedings, reporting the positions of both sides, in more detail than news reports. Roe was 65 pages. And anyone can get a transcript of the proceedings, and copies of the legal briefs filed, if they are rich enough. At least records exist. 

The value of expert witnesses in abortion prevention trials, who testified that fully human life begins from the first minute, is that they were never, or at least virtually never refuted. Which is breathtaking considering that Planned Barrenhood invests billions in legally attacking prolifers, demonstrating their extremely high motivation to refute prolifers in court to the extent possible!
Yet the closest they came to refuting the expert witnesses against them was to say that babies of humans may be fully human, making killing them legally recognizable as murder, but Roe made that “irrelevant”. 

In normal trials, if a litigant argues that the opposing evidence is irrelevant, he will also bring in contrary evidence to show the opposing evidence is also wrong, in case the judge doesn’t agree that it is irrelevant. But in abortion trials, that apparently never happened. No witness, in thousands of trials, was ever brought forward to testify that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. The fact was dismissed as irrelevant, but '''the accuracy of the fact was for all practical purposes conceded,''' being left unchallenged.

Unfortunately prolife legislatures have not cited this overwhelming evidence in court. Some litigants cite the expertise of new authorities that have not yet been tested in court, but not the tested evidence. This is a powerful resource that prolifers should use. In both kinds of courts.

===Legislatures===

Societies respect the findings of their legislatures as much as any other authority because all the lawmakers are there with the support of a majority of voters, and to remain there, they suffer the bombardment of opinions and information that would make the average citizen cry. And even once there, they are scrutinized by other lawmakers who continually look for ways to disprove them. 

Lawmakers are elected from the same populations that supply jurors, and expert witnesses are routinely clamoring to give them information for free. Lawmakers pay the salaries of judges, and have the power – seldom exercised, but they have it – to impeach judges who stray too far out of their jurisdiction into the powers assigned to legislatures. When they impeach judges, they then hold trials just like courts do; except that the senators are judges and the judges are defendants.
	
So when legislatures agree on facts, their verdict is as persuasive and acceptable to society as any human authority. 

It is therefore for good reason that these fact-finding authorities are recognized by courts and are persuasive in the Court of Public Opinion, even though not many think about these details. Still, these points should be made. 

In both kinds of courts.

===Congress.===

Congress approves Supreme Court justices. Not only does the Constitution give Congress that power, but Congress is well qualified: it contains many lawyers, many of whom qualify as constitutional scholars. At least that is what presidents have often thought, since [https://www.senate.gov/senators/Supreme_Court.htm 15 U.S. Senators] served on the U.S. Supreme Court, not counting those nominated but not approved by the Senate. 

So when Congress ruled that all unborn babies are fully human from fertilization (“members of the species homo sapiens at all stages of gestation”) its ruling on that fact carries at least as much weight as what the Supreme Court has ruled. Especially since the Supreme Court has never ruled on when babies in fact become human. 

Roe said it is when babies are “recognizably human” and/or “infused with a soul”. (“These disciplines variously approached the question [of when life begins] in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being,  that is, infused with a ‘soul’... Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 133 (1973) Although this statement reports how other “disciplines” framed “the question”, this criteria is reported without criticism, implying concurrence; especially since Roe offered no other criteria and even said “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is unable to speculate” in the absence of the consensus of expert witnesses: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”.)

==Conflicting Prolife Goals==

Two conflicting goals have divided prolife lawmakers for half a century: (1) the goal of getting abortion outlawed comprehensively, (ie. not just surgical but chemical abortions, no exceptions for rape or incest, etc.) and (2) the goal of getting the law passed and safely through courts. 

It has seldom been thought possible to achieve both goals. The strategy here has a third goal designed to make goals #1 and #2 easy, but whose initial draft will seem to violate #1 because it leaves whole areas of baby killing unaddressed, and to violate #2 because it outlaws way more than many prolife lawyers will think possible. 

This third goal is to get judges out of the way of saving lives in about a year, so legislatures will have the green light to deliberate on all the details as comprehensively as their voters will accept, and not only that, but to educate voters ''so voters will not just accept but demand'' much more. 

In other words the purpose of this bill is NOT to comprehensively define, now,  what rights to live babies ought to have, but to push away judicial and political obstacles to legislators defining, in as soon as a year,  what rights to live babies ought to have. It is like an earth mover which must first come along and reconfigure a hill so that a cement truck can come later and lay down a road. The two functions must not be confused. The earth mover must not be barred from the work area because it will not lay down a road. 

==Obstacles to Saving Lives==

===Obstacle #1: America's Smartest Judges Can't Tell if Babies of People are People.===

Hard to believe, but read it and weep: [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Troubling_Excerpts_&_ Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson Troubling_Excerpts_&_ Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson]
 
===Obstacle #2: Lingering Lower Court Precedent that Roe made Babies nonPersons “as a matter of Law”===

Lower appellate courts in abortion prevention cases used to say that evidence that babies are in fact fully human is irrelevant – therefore inadmissible, because Roe made babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”. Roe never said such a thing, and it is absurd to imagine that a state can make murder legal simply by saying in the law that the human beings to be murdered aren’t people “as a matter of law”. But that's what courts said.

Indeed, Dobbs said “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.” But lower courts weren’t held back from making up a holding not found in any SCOTUS ruling in 1973, so they are capable of the same stunt in 2023. Especially since Dobbs is as noncommittal on the humanity of babies as was Roe. 

===Obstacle #3: ... America let them get away with it.===

Prolife legislation that made it to SCOTUS (and most of the rest) never challenged the myth that Roe made babies “nonPersons”. They didn’t make the humanity of babies an issue that courts needed to address. 

(Webster, 1979, said babies are people but also said Missouri would obey Roe, so SCOTUS said when Missouri actually restricts abortion is when SCOtUS will think about babies being people. Dobbs, 2022, said babies are people but Attorney General Stewart called it “hot” and “difficult” whether to keep protecting their murders! An issue upon which the AG said SCOTUS should remain “scrupulously neutral”! [See my analysis of December 1, 2021 oral arguments at [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Valentine_Letter_to_Supreme_Court_Justices:_outlaw_baby_killing_in_EVERY_state Outlaw Baby Killing in EVERY State]

Instead of pointing out that babies of humans are humans which makes dismembering them murder which no state can be allowed to legalize, states bowed to Casey, 1992, which said no abortion restriction can be “substantial” - nor can any part of its purpose be to reduce abortions. 

Although over 60,000 were arrested for blocking baby killing doors and their defense in court was that they were saving lives, those “lawbreakers” didn't even have majority prolife support much less full Republican support, making their defense easy to gaslight. 

To this day no state in its prolife laws or courtroom defense has pointed out that the FACT that unborn babies are fully human is dispositive, and is “established” by 38 states in their “unborn victims of violence” laws, dozens of juries in abortion prevention cases when judges allowed them to hear the Necessity Defense, tens of thousands of expert witnesses in those trials who were never countered, Congress in 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), and by every judge who has taken a position. No American court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position on "when life begins" has fixed any later time than fertilization." '''If the consensus of every American court-recognized fact finder is not enough to establish a fact enough for a judge to know it, it is impossible for any judge to ever know anything.''' 

'''It is impossible for any judge to squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal.''' 

But no state has presented this evidence in any court. 

Judges think it is unethical to rule according to evidence submitted by neither party to a case.
No state has made these points in court. Making them in the law’s “findings” will force the ruling to quote them, which will force judges to address them. 

For example, after quoting #2 of the law proposed here, which calls unanimous lower appellant precedent “the opposite of what Roe or any other SCOTUS precedent said”, courts couldn’t just ignore that claim. They would have to deal with it. 

Public education is needed to help pressure judges to squarely address the findings. The Judicial Accountability Act  will make the pressure overwhelming. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/
Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating How Legislatures can Stop Judges from Legislating]

CAVEAT: Obviously, women do have a “fundamental right” to manage their own health, including removing foreign objects from their bodies which are not people. This strategy in no way targets cancer operations.

==Willful Blindness to Personhood Before and After Dobbs==

Of the goals stated on page 2, the following is just as important now, after Dobbs v. Jackson, as it was before, but for different reasons:

'''• The restriction must be substantial enough to rule out every lesser courtroom defense, than that it saves lives.'''

Before Dobbs, any state that wanted to focus judges’ attention to the evidence that babies are humans/people would have needed to enact a restriction of abortion that was substantial. That is because Casey, 1992, had said no state law can “substantially” restrict abortion, OR have for its purpose ANY reduction of abortion. That intimidated prolife states into crafting prolife laws which did NOT substantially reduce abortion, and which were equipped with some other “legitimate government purpose” than saving lives. 

For example, keeping the murder rooms clean, keeping an accurate count of the number of murders, or informing moms that they were about to become murderers. Those “legitimate government purposes” became SCOTUS-approved.

In fact, presenting evidence of life was a no-no for any state trying to satisfy Casey, since that would admit that part of the state’s purpose was to reduce abortion. 

An example of how far states went to accommodate Casey was Iowa’s heartbeat bill. Prolifers were told it would eliminate almost all abortions since the age where a heartbeat is detectable is almost the age where a mom knows she has a baby. But in court, obviously trying to dodge Casey, attorney Martin Cannon actually told the judge the law would ''not stop one single abortion; it would merely pressure mothers to hurry up and find out whether they are pregnant so they can murder their babies before we are sure they are “persons”!'' (See [http://saltshaker.us/ SLIC/IowaHeartbeatArguments.pdf Iowa Heartbeat Arguments])

Post-Dobbs, it is just as important that the penalties of a prolife law are a serious, profound restriction of abortion, but for a very different reason. No longer are states ordered to keep restrictions negligible, but Casey’s  reason for keeping restrictions negligible has not been corrected. In fact, Dobbs explicitly stated the issue, and then explicitly declined to address it:

<blockquote>There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was instead spurred by a ''sincere belief that abortion kills a human being.'' Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point....One may disagree with this belief (and '''our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests'''), but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith of abortion opponents. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U.  S., at 850 (“Men and women of good conscience can disagree .  .  . about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stage”). DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F.  3d 265</blockquote>

Notice, however, that Dobbs does ''not'' say either that (1) it is impossible or impermissible for “abortion kills a human being” to graduate from a “sincere belief” to a “fact”; or that (2) even if that fact is established, that won’t make abortion legally recognizable as murder; or that (3) even after abortion is legally recognizable as murder, voters should ''still'' get to decide whether to keep it legal. For further analysis of Dobbs see my review at [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ Troubling_Excerpts_&_Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson]
 
This is the same judicial willful blindness to the only issue that really matters that was adopted by even the conservative justices in Casey, 1992, modeled before it by Roe v Wade, 1973. Here is Scalia, White, and Thomas’ dissent in ''Casey'', followed by a statement from Roe:

<blockquote>The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its “balancing” [between women’s “privacy” and “potential life”] is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. </blockquote>
<blockquote>There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so.  Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1992) (Concurrence/dissent of Scalia, White, Thomas)</blockquote>
    
<blockquote>Roe: “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer...[to] the difficult question of when [constitutionally protectable human] life begins.” So therefore “We need not resolve” the question!... </blockquote> 
<blockquote>“[Prolifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortionist’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th]Amendment. The [abortionist] conceded as much on reargument.</blockquote>
<blockquote>“...we  would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion...if [we had known that] the necessary consequence was the  termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.” </blockquote>

What fact can be more central to an abortion case, than that babies are people, which makes killing them murder? Yet for 50 years and still counting, even SCOTUS’ most conservative justices  seem determined, if not personally, ethically, religiously invested, in ignoring that “elephant in the room”. They are not alone: the same willful blindness reigns in the Court of Public Opinion. And even in many churches. 

Therefore this obstacle to saving lives needs to be taken seriously. Satan has set up headquarters there. Every effort must be taken by legislatures to make “it’s a baby” the central, inescapable issue in court, and Findings of Facts must not only prove clear and irrefutable to judges but  just as clear and irrefutable in the Court of Public Opinion.

==An Example of a Substantial yet Simple Restriction==

The restriction must be substantial enough to rule out every lesser courtroom defense, than that it saves lives, yet it must be simple enough to be free of any distraction from ruling on the evidence that babies are people, such as a “lesser issue” over which the judge can dispose of the case and say “we therefore have no need to address when life begins”. 

This is an example of a profoundly substantial restriction of abortion yet which is so simple that it adds only five words and deletes 10. This leaves NO room for some judge to dodge the central issue on some technicality. 

“Bills” in legislatures are proposed changes to laws. Underlines indicate proposed additions. Strikeouts indicate proposed deletions. 

Iowa Code 707.7 Feticide.

1. Any person who intentionally terminates a human pregnancy <u>at any state of gestation,</u> with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, <s>after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy where death of the fetus results,</s> commits feticide. Feticide is a class “C” felony. ''[The next three paragraphs would be altered similarly.]''

==Expedited Review in federal law==

Every prolife bill ought to include: <u>Any court review of this law must be expedited, since lives are lost with each day that courts delay.</u>

The power of this addition is explained on page 3, top. This article is about the use of expedited review in law generally.

Legislatures sometimes require courts, in time-sensitive cases, to rule quickly. Usually expedited review is an option for judges, when a party to a case requests it. When a court reviews the constitutionality of a state law, the state is a party to the case. 

'''Examples: Expedited Review Grounds''' 

'''DC Circuit Federal Court:''' A party seeking expedited consideration generally "must demonstrate the delay will cause irreparable injury and that the decision under review is subject to substantial challenge"; but "[t]he Court may also expedite cases . . . in which the public generally [has] an unusual interest in prompt disposition" and the reasons are "strongly compelling." - U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 40 (1987). 

'''9th Circuit:''' The requesting party must make a showing of “good cause,” where irreparable harm might occur or an appeal might become moot. Rutter 6:149. 

'''10th Circuit:''' Appeals can be expedited under 28 U.S.C. 1657 for "good cause." 

'''Iowa''': Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.902 has special rules for children's issues (since children might not remain children through a years-long case) and lawyer disciplinary proceedings. (Babies are children.) 

'''3rd Circuit:''' Rule 4.1 says a motion for expedited appeal must set forth the exceptional reason that warrants expedition and include a proposed briefing schedule. 

'''4th Circuit:''' Rule 12(c) says “A motion to expedite should state clearly the reasons supporting expedition....” 

'''7th Circuit:''' Appeals can be expedited under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 for “good cause.” (Reasons must be given.) 

'''Expedited Appeal Law and Legal Definition''' (An explanation at uslegal..com): “The court will speed up cases involving issues of child custody, support, visitation, adoption, paternity, determination that a child is in need of services, termination of parental rights, and all other appeals entitled to priority by the appellate rules or statute.” Other grounds: “the constitutionality of any law, the public revenue, and public health, or otherwise of general public concern or for other good cause,” (Source: rcfp.org lists expedited review rules for each federal circuit court and for each state's courts.) 

==Too Lengthy?==

Unlike the “penalties” section which must remain simple and short enough that no judge can find a technicality to rule on in order to ignore the central issue, the “Findings” section must be thorough enough to refute objections to the law expected in court, which have also prevented prolifers from challenging legal abortion as the legally recognizable murder of human beings, and which have confused the public.

In other words the same arguments which need to be in the law so judges can’t overturn it, need to be in the bill so lawmakers will pass it, the public will support it, and abortion supporters will retreat.  The more information in the law, the less lawmakers will have to memorize to defend it, the harder for news reporters to portray it as indefensible, the easier for voters to find corroboration, and the more certainly lawyers defending the law will make the arguments you want. 
Baby Killers will help publicize them at every stage of their progress through legislative deadlines, because like June Bugs in summer, they are unable to see a Light without slamming themselves against it. 

Some of these Findings will seem idiotic to some people for opposite reasons. Prolife leaders and lawyers will find statements so far opposite to the conventional legal wisdom of decades as to seem legally naive. Those  who have never heard the legal assumptions to which these paragraphs respond may think them so obvious as to be stupid to even say. 

Two goals are at perpetual war with one another in any writing targeting evil: brevity, and “making the case”, which includes addressing all objections. Satan has the advantage with people who “don’t like to read” because it takes fewer words to lie than to refute a lie.