Difference between revisions of "Reversing Landmark Abomination Cases"

From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
(→‎Statement of Facts #10 of 12: Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, and by the Declaration, which gives the purpose of the Constitution and rests its own authority on the revelation of God1 in the Bible)
 
(64 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|[[Forum]] (Articles)
 +
|[[Offer]]
 +
|[[Partners]]
 +
|[[Rules]]
 +
|[[Tips]]
 +
|[[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]
 +
|[[Begin!]]
 +
|[https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=G3A8DgIJOtxZ3zn7_1cVGnF-lRSUzXCVpSf30Q7Gd_zLYTBERe7VSt2YrZSlihtU6K4lYW&country.x=US&locale.x=US Donate]
 +
|}
 +
 
<span style="color:red">'''Saving Babies''' from judges & voters
 
<span style="color:red">'''Saving Babies''' from judges & voters
 
<br>'''Saving Souls''' from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion</span>
 
<br>'''Saving Souls''' from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion</span>
Line 8: Line 19:
 
<br>for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen  
 
<br>for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen  
  
−
by Dave Leach
+
by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) 18:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  
 
=Introduction=
 
=Introduction=
Line 18: Line 29:
 
But murdering babies is only the most egregious of many Landmark Abomination Cases. Their common thread is usurping authority which the Constitution assigns to others, and equating the Bible with spurious religions. “Never let a crisis go to waste”, say the enemies of God, but God is the true master of turning evil into an opportunity for good. It’s time. Let’s end the Supreme Court’s war against God.
 
But murdering babies is only the most egregious of many Landmark Abomination Cases. Their common thread is usurping authority which the Constitution assigns to others, and equating the Bible with spurious religions. “Never let a crisis go to waste”, say the enemies of God, but God is the true master of turning evil into an opportunity for good. It’s time. Let’s end the Supreme Court’s war against God.
  
−
The very fact that abortion is the worst of the ways the United States Supreme Court has turned American law upside down creates an opportunity to heal that branch of our government, and heal all the harm to our nation and its culture and morals that has been done. As Professor Nathan Schluetter at Hillsdale College observes, “We must not let this opportunity pass to boldly challenge the prevailing jurisprudence and its attendant epistemological and moral skepticism with respect to abortion.”
+
The very fact that abortion is the worst of the ways the United States Supreme Court has turned American law upside down creates an opportunity to heal that branch of our government, and heal all the harm to our nation and its culture and morals that it has caused. As Professor Nathan Schluetter at Hillsdale College observes, “We must not let this opportunity pass to boldly challenge the prevailing jurisprudence and its attendant epistemological and moral skepticism with respect to abortion.”
  
 
----
 
----
Line 28: Line 39:
 
[[File:Cover_Cartoon.jpg]]
 
[[File:Cover_Cartoon.jpg]]
  
 +
----
  
 +
Why these solutions may help even where abortion is already outlawed
 +
 +
(1) They could defeat a national abortion legalization.
 +
 +
(2) They could help you sue a nearby “blue state” for helping its baby killers murder your children.
 +
 +
(3) They could help if your district judges join the courtroom rebellion against Dobbs in other states.
 +
 +
(4) They could help meet challenges in the Court of Public Opinion, for example through a Resolution that irrefutably addresses every objection you have ever heard, as understandable to voters as it is irrefutable to judges. That would help the public see through future judicial gaslighting, and support judicial reform: ie. www.savetheworld .saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_ stop_judges_from_legislating
 +
 +
(5) I could sure use your feedback. Proverbs 15:22.
 +
 +
----
 
<center>'''Ending legal abortion everywhere in close to a year
 
<center>'''Ending legal abortion everywhere in close to a year
 
(the goal of the following bill language)
 
(the goal of the following bill language)
Line 74: Line 99:
  
  
−
===Bible study: free wisdom, guaranteed success===
+
===Bible Nugget: free wisdom, guaranteed success===
  
 
'''John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
 
'''John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Line 92: Line 117:
 
If you believe God, you will not excuse yourself from God’s call because you can’t talk well, like Moses, whom God answered “Who made mouths?” Exodus 4:11. Nor will you excuse yourself to God, saying you are but a child against the world’s superbrains, like Jeremiah, whom God answered, “Stop saying that! It is MY words you will speak, and I am no child!” Jeremiah 1:6-8.  
 
If you believe God, you will not excuse yourself from God’s call because you can’t talk well, like Moses, whom God answered “Who made mouths?” Exodus 4:11. Nor will you excuse yourself to God, saying you are but a child against the world’s superbrains, like Jeremiah, whom God answered, “Stop saying that! It is MY words you will speak, and I am no child!” Jeremiah 1:6-8.  
 
 
−
If you believe God, you will shine God’s light wherever you find Darkness, Matthew 5:13-16. Since nothing is darker than murdering your own baby, you will seek God’s help as you oppose this evil, and none of these excuses will withdraw you from action.  
+
If you believe God, you will shine God’s light wherever you find Darkness, Matthew 5:13-16. Since nothing is darker than murdering your own baby, you will seek God’s help as you oppose this evil, and none of these excuses will withdraw you from action.
  
 
===Final Warning: read this at your own risk===
 
===Final Warning: read this at your own risk===
Line 102: Line 127:
 
=Part 1: Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders=
 
=Part 1: Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders=
  
−
Try to imagine how a judge,  
+
<span style="color:grey"><small>''Try to imagine how a judge, reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts, would be able to dodge this evidence - in fact, see if you can find ANYONE who can ''refute'' these facts - as opposed to not ''caring'' about facts - that is, not caring about reality:''</small></span>
−
reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts,  
 
−
would be able to dodge this evidence:
 
−
 
 
−
====Statement of Fact #1. Court­-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human====
 
  
−
'''Court­-recognized,  court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let ''any'' state legalize.'''
+
==Statement of Fact #1 of 12: Court­-recognized,  court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let ''any'' state legalize==
−
<ref>'''More about “...murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The legal goal of outlawing abortion in every state is dismissed by every SCOTUS justice and by most prolife lawyers, (quotes follow), but that goal has failed only by ignoring this consensus of fact finders - “the Mammoth in the Room”.  It has been successfully ignored only because prolife lawmakers have not placed  it in Findings of Facts where judges were forced to address it.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''The Constitution isn’t as bad as prolifers think: Schluetter.'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Debating with Judge Bork, Law professor Nathan Schluetter at Hillsdale College wrote in 2003: “It is surprising...that on this most central constitutional and moral issue [that babies are in fact people so we shouldn’t murder them] a preponderance of pro-life advocates and legal scholars continually misinterpret the Constitution. According to them, a proper reading of the Constitution would [go no farther than to] reject [Roe’s] concept of a privacy right to abortion, and thus return the nation to the pre-Roe status quo in which the decision of when, whether, and how to regulate [murder] was left to the states. In offering this 'restoration interpretation,' they ignore or reject the proper interpretation, which would extend the [right to life] of the Fourteenth Amendment to unborn persons [which will outlaw baby killing in every state]. This is what I will call in this essay the ‘unborn person interpretation.’
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“They continue to do this despite the fact that both the majority in  Roe  and the appellants to the case conceded that if the personhood of the unborn [or, the fact that babies of people are real people] could be established, ‘the [abortionist’s] case, [for legalizing baby killing in every state] of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state].’
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“To gauge the pervasiveness of the restoration interpretation among life advocates, one need only consult [a past issue of this publication]. Forty-five leading pro-life advocates, including Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life, Wanda Franz of the National Right to Life Committee, and Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, signed a much heralded joint ‘Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern’ published in ''First Things'' in 1996 in which the primary legal complaint was made that  Roe  ‘wounded American democracy’ by removing the issue of abortion from 'democratic concern.'
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The statement suggested two legal remedies: first, the Supreme Court could reverse  Roe , returning the issue to the states; second, the nation could pass a constitutional amendment that would extend Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to unborn persons.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The statement does not even hint at the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons [based on the indisputable fact that babies are real people, requiring no additional legal recognition of their right to life]. The ''First Things'' statement seems to reflect the unanimous opinion of those Justices on the Supreme Court who have urged reversing Roe , not one of whom has attempted to make or even respond in their opinions to the unborn person interpretation. [Not even the most liberal justices have denied that babies are real people, yet not even the most conservative justices consider the indisputable evidence worth mentioning.]
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This misunderstanding doesn’t just threaten babies. “However well-intentioned, the arguments of the restoration advocates are usually grounded in an epistemological skepticism that is alien to normal constitutional interpretation and harmful to the political morality on which free government is based.”</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,
+
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,2 thousands of expert witnesses who were not contested,3 38 state legislatures,4 individual judges,5 and Congress.6  
−
<ref>More about “Juries/court-recognized Finders of Facts”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''When juries ruled that babies are real people.''' 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 judges stopped letting juries hear that defense. Abortionists were 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. [Except for the one element that matters, and the only contested trial issue: whether lives were saved.] 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;'''Juries don’t usually give reasons for their verdicts.''' I (Dave Leach, author) 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;'''How God provided an official record of the jury’s reasons.''' 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. That ruling is so helpful, and the difficulty of getting an official record of a jury’s reasons so great, that God must be credited and thanked for presumably hardening the heart of the prosecutor so the judge had to rule.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The judge 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.''' [Violating a minor offense, like trespassing, is “justified” when it is “necessary” to save lives.] 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.'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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>
 
−
thousands of expert witnesses who were not contested,
 
−
<ref>'''More about “Expert Witnesses/court-recognized Fact Finders’”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Doctors & geneticists routinely testified in “Operation Rescue”-type door-blocking trials.''' 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.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''When a world famous geneticist flew from France to Wichita.''' A case widely reported among prolifers was 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 www.Saltshaker.us. 
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''How Courts Dodged Overwhelming Evidence of Life.'''  The defense raised in virtually all those trials of all those 60,000+ arrested life savers was based on American law, not religion. I know of no case where anyone asked for a religious exemption from letting the slaughter continue, or who gave Bible verses as the reason they should be acquitted.
 
−
And yet courts routinely dismissed legitimate legal defenses as being exclusively religious.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Surely the most notorious example was Elizabeth Tilson’s defense on July 20, 1992. She even flew in the world’s top geneticist from France, Dr. LeJeune, to testify about “when life begins”. District Judge Paul Clark, summarizing the defense and ruling in her favor, did not indicate religion was any part of the defense. (See excerpts in Appendix H, p. 145.) Yet the Kansas Court dismissed all that world-class scientific evidence as a “moral or ethical belief” of some dowdy no-account religious kook housewife who expects law to bow to her superstitions.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote>
 
−
If recognized as [a] defense in [a] criminal case, justification by necessity defense only applies when [the] harm or evil which [the] defendant seeks to prevent by his or her own criminal conduct is legal[ly recognized] harm or evil '''as opposed to moral or ethical belief of individual defendant'''....defendants did not engage in illegal conduct because they were faced with a choice of evils. Rather, they intentionally trespassed on complainant's property '''in order to interfere with the rights of others'''....''City of Wichita v. Tilson'', 253 Kan. 285 (1993)</blockquote>
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But what about the world-class testimony that human beings were being slaughtered? Completely irrelevant, the court said. We have to follow “law”, not some frowsy housewife’s “moral or ethical belief”:
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote>In a criminal prosecution for trespass upon the property of an abortion clinic, the defense of justification by necessity is inapplicable and '''evidence of when life begins is irrelevant. The admission of evidence of when life begins in such an action was error''' by the trial court....Judge Paul Clark held that...the defendant was absolved of any criminal liability for her actions, based upon the necessity defense [which] justified her trespassing upon the Clinic property '''for the purpose of saving a human life.''' At trial, over the objections of the City, the defendant was allowed to introduce expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The City did not attempt to controvert such evidence but instead took the position that the evidence was '''inadmissible because it was irrelevant.''' ''City of Wichita v. Tilson'', 253 Kan. 285 (1993)</blockquote>
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Her REAL motive, said the Court, was not “saving a human life” as documented by the world’s leading expert on genetics at all, but was “to interfere with the rights of others” according to some individual’s “moral or ethical belief”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is not an isolated “straw man” misconstruction of a serious legal defense. Appellate courts did it routinely. Appendix F of my book, linked in Note 3, gives examples. If we could trust courts to never do that again, this book could be a lot shorter.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Doctors testifying as official Expert Witnesses in “rescue” trials was so routine that even I had one in my own trial.''' I found a doctor to testify in my own trial after I was arrested for sitting in front of a Planned Barrenhood door to prevent mothers from coming in to murder their babies. It was after a workshop put on by “rescuers” to educate people who had never been inside a courtroom how to conduct ourselves in court, since few of us could afford a lawyer and lawyers successful in such cases could not be found. Doctors willing to testify for free were plentiful. Their testimony was routine in “rescue” trials, even after judges stopped allowing juries to hear them. There were not just a few trials. In about 1992 Operation Rescue reported that there had been over 60,000 arrests of door-blockers. 
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After judges stopped letting juries listen to the witnesses, doctors still testified, but after sending the jury out. It is called a “proffer” of evidence; the judge rules that it is irrelevant, but he will let the evidence go into the record so that it will be there for any appeal.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Updated science''' is summarized by the <u>Illinois Right to Life</u> in their amicus brief filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson''. “Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in his testimony in connection with the 1981 hearing on Senate Bill 158, the Human Life Bill, see infra at 15-16, concluded, '''‘I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being'''. This is human life at every stage.’ Cited in House Resolution No. 214, https://perma. cc/6XRG-L2C8.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''The Consensus of Biologists.''' “b. An overwhelming majority of biologists recognize that a human’s life begins at fertilization. A recent international study involving 5,577 biologists from 86 countries who work at 1,061 top-ranked academic institutions confirmed the scientific consensus on when life begins. The study asked biologists to confirm or reject five statements that represent the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization. The majority of the biologists in the study identified as liberal (89%), pro#choice (85%), and non-religious (63%). 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed at least one of the statements and only 240 participants declined to affirm any statements (4%).
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The study participants were also asked to answer an essay question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” Most biologists (68%) indicated fertilization. Thus, while in Roe, the Court found that experts could not arrive at any consensus at that point in the development of man’s knowledge, that is no longer the case.” [American participants included biologists from Harvard University, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Yale University. See When Does Life Begin?, Illinois Right to Life, https://perma.cc/U99P-4Y6C. Steven A. Jacobs, Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate, Knowledge@Uchicago, 2019, https://perma.cc/GZT2-8JDN
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''An Official Senate Report.''' “c. Legislative hearings on when life begins marshalled scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization. During hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, numerous scientific experts testified regarding when life begins. The Official Senate Report concluded that: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” [Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7] In the hearings, Dr. Jerome Lejeune testified that “[l]ife has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning – the moment of its conception” because “[t]o accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence.” S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 transcript, 18. [ S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 Transcript, https://perma. cc/6DCT-UT4P.]
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''No alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in scientific literature.''' “Experts from leading institutions have testified that there are no alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in the scientific literature. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor of Medical Genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic, testified: “I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against.” Id. at 52. This lack of any published, let alone generally accepted, alternative scientific theories was also attested to by Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate in the Department of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Id. at 41-42. ...
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''A few disagree but without even trying to invoke science, medicine, or facts.'''  “While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Even baby killers admit they are killing baby humans. ''' "d. Even doctors who perform abortions and proponents of abortion rights admit fetuses are human beings. Many practitioners of abortion and supporters of abortion rights acknowledge human life begins at conception.(26) For example, when abortion doctor Dr. Curtis Boyd was interviewed, he acknowledged with respect to abortion: “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.”(27) Abortion rights supporter and ethicist Peter Singer has written that being “a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;e. '''Views opposing the position that human life starts at fertilization are unscientific and ideological.'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;....Ultimately, opposing arguments to the scientific consensus that a human’s life begins at fertilization are fallacious or focus on aspects of biology that are not relevant to the biological classification of human beings. 
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''26. Derek Smith, Pro-Choice Concedes: Prominent Abortion Proponents Concede The Barbarity Of Abortion, Human Defense Initiative, Nov. 7, 2018, https://perma.cc/GXH8-MAUU. See also, A New Ethic for Medicine and Society, California Medicine, Sep. 1970.
 
−
<br>27. KVUE Austin Interview of Dr. Curtis Boyd, at 0:23, YouTube, Nov. 6, 2009, https://perma.cc/GYB2-3YFY.''</ref>
 
  
−
38 state legislatures,
+
If the unanimous – uncontested – finding of every court-recognized fact-finder is not enough ‘establishment’ for the court to know a fact, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.
−
<ref>'''More about “State Legislatures/court-recognized Fact Finders”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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)”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Amicus filed in Dobbs by Illinois Right to Life: [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686_19-1392%20BRIEF%20FOR%20AMICUS%20CURIAE%20ILLINOIS%20RIGHT%20TO%20<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf]
 
−
“Fetuses are recognized as human persons in numerous contexts: (1) laws that restrict abortion at some point in fetal development, (2) fetal homicide laws, (3) prohibitions against capital punishment imposed upon pregnant women, (4) recovery for fetal deaths under wrongful death statutes, (5) the rights of preborn children under property law, (6) legal guardianship of prenatal humans, [See Paul Benjamin Linton, The Legal Status of the Unborn Child Under State Law, 6 U. St. Thomas J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 2011, https://perma.cc/XB8E-G375. ] (7) the rights of preborn children to a deceased parent’s Social Security and Disability benefits[SSR 68-22: SECTION 216(h)(3)(C). – Relationship – Status of Illegitimate Posthumous Child, Social Security Administration, https://perma.cc/W3TR-89L9. ], and (8) the rights of inheritance of posthumously born children.[. Alea Roberts, Where’s My Share?: Inheritance Rights of Posthumous Children, American Bar Association, Jun. 13, 2019, https://perma.cc/36VN-HZZ8 ] Despite the plethora of contexts in which fetuses are recognized as persons under the law, this Court has yet to recognize the personhood of preborn humans.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“b. '''States are increasingly proposing and enacting laws protective of unborn human beings even when abortion is curtailed as a result.'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Today, 43 states have enacted laws protecting prenatal humans although abortion is thereby restricted. All but one restrict abortion access at the earliest point permissible by Roe (viability), and states have recently more emphatically asserted a state interest in the lives of previable human beings by seeking to protect them: (1) after the sixth week since that is known to be the point at which a fetus’ heart first beats (AL HB314; IA SF359) and (2) after the twentieth week since that has been found to''Italic text'' be the point at which a fetus can first feel pain (OH SB 127).”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;States don’t unanimously protect the unborn, but no state finds that unborn babies are ''not'' human persons. Plus, 38 states is enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Not that they should: as other Findings observe, there is already more than enough consensus of fact finders to require outlawing of abortion in every state; and the consensus of fact finders is actually a stronger legal reason than a constitutional amendment, since no other Amendment was ratified to establish a fact.)    </ref>
 
−
individual judges,
 
−
<ref>'''More about “Judges/Fact Finders”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One example is Judge Paul Clark: see footnote 3. Another is Justice Dimond in ''Alaska:  Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska'', 631 P.2d 1073, 1084:
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Concurring:) "I empathize with the defendants' sorrow over the ''loss of human lives'' caused by abortions. I believe the United States Supreme Court ''burdened this court with a tragic decision'' when it held in Roe...that the word “person, as used in the fourteenth amendment, does not include the unborn...”, and that states cannot “override the rights of the pregnant woman” by “adopting one theory of life.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"I do not agree with the Court's conclusion that a state's interest in potential life does not become “compelling” until the fetus has attained viability. It stated its explanation for this conclusion as follows:
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” (410 U.S. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 731-32, 35 L.Ed.2d at 183) As Professor Tribe indicates, “One reads the court's explanation [of the magic line called “viability”] several times before becoming convinced that nothing has inadvertently been omitted.” (Tribe, Forward to The Supreme Court 1972 Term, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1. 4 (1973](footnote omitted]). I agree with Professor Tribe when he states, “Clearly, this (analysis] mistakes a definition for a syllogism”, and offers no reason at all for what the Court has held. (Id., quoting Ely, ''The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade'' , 82 Yale L.J. 920, 924 (1973](footnotes omitted]).
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In effect, the Supreme Court held that because there is no consensus as to when human life begins it can act as if it were proven that human life does not begin until birth so as to preserve to women the right to make their own decision whether an abortion takes a human life or not. It would make more sense to me if, in the face of uncertainty, any error made were side in favor of the fetus, which many believe to be human life.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The development of a zygote into a human child is a continual, progressive development. No one suggests that the born child is not a human being. It seems undeniable, however, that human life begins before birth. As Professor Curran states:
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“ '[T]he fetus one day before birth and the child one day after birth are not that significantly or qualitatively different – in any respect; Even outside the womb the newborn child is not independent but remains greatly dependent on the mother and others. Birth in fact does not really tell much about the individual as such but only where the individual is--either outside the womb or still Inside the womb.' (C. Curran, ''Transition and Tradition in Moral Theology'', p. 209 (1919]). Similarly, viability does not mark the beginning of the truly human being.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[V]iability again indicates more about where the fetus can live than what it is. The fetus immediately before viability is not that qualitatively different from the viable fetus. In addition viability is a very inexact criterion because it is intimately connected with medical and scientific advances. In the future it might very well be possible for the fetus to live in an artificial womb or even with an artificial placenta from a very early stage in fetal development.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I join with those persons who believe that truly human life begins sometime between the second and third week after conception...."
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A dissent by Justice Mahoney said
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Until the Court decides when a fetus is a person, I see no reason to deny the defense of necessity to those who believe that the fetus is viable and is a person...At least it would get the issue squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court....” ''Detwiler v. Akron, C.A.'' No. 14385 at 22 (9th App. Dist. 1990)    </ref>
 
−
and Congres­s.
 
−
<ref>'''More about “Congress/court-recognized Fact Finder'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finding #7  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 and by Republican Congressmen.</ref>
 
  
−
No legal authority has ruled that any unborn baby of a human is ''not'' in fact a human person, or that “life begins” ''any later'' than fertilization.
+
No legal authority has ruled that any unborn baby of a human is not in fact a human person, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.7
−
<ref>'''More about “No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected ‘life begins’ any later than conception.”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not even New York’s January 22, 2019 law.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This needs to be clarified because conservative news reported as if New York became an exception. Not that the law was harmless. It legalized abortions through birth when the abortionist alleged the baby would die soon anyway. It allowed non-doctors to kill babies. It repealed a law requiring a second physician to be present in case an infant was born alive and needed care.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But it didn’t define “person” to only mean human beings who are born, leaving unborn humans defined as non-persons. The articles I found didn’t exactly say that, but they implied that by reporting the definition of “persons”, without reporting that the definition was not added by the new law but had been in the law for years, and without reporting the context of the definition which simply means that when the coroner investigates dead bodies found in his county, or in a jail, he will not investigate unborn babies. It also means a judge, when excluding the public from divorce or rape trials, will not exclude unborn babies.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The definition: “ ‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As I said, the conservative reports didn’t directly say the definition meant that unborn babies were defined as nonpersons, so most readers might not have thought about it. But because I had been claiming that no American legal authority had ever ruled that babies become real people at any later time than fertilization, I wanted to look into it to see if New York had created an exception.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You can verify that the definition was already in the law by reading the bill, and noting that the phrase is not underlined, which is how additions to laws are indicated. See [https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S00240&term=2019 &Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y]
 
−
You can also verify it by reading the law as of 2016, which includes that definition. [https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2016/pen/part-3/title-h/article-125/125.05/]
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You can read the Breitbart report at  [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/ 2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/]
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You can read the Townhall report at  [https://townhall.com/tipsheet/ laurettabrown/2 019/01/23/new-york-passes-extreme-abortion-legislation-on-the-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade-n2539902]
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The law had previously read “Homicide  means  conduct  which  causes  the  death of a person [or an unborn child....]” The 2019 law deleted the part in brackets.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The definition previously had two more paragraphs which the 2019 law deleted. They defined the terms “abortional act” and “justifiable abortional act” which had been used in the now deleted law against late term abortion.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This point is worth clearing up because it is a very strong, important argument for the legal recognizability of all unborn babies as humans/persons, and of all abortions as murder, that no American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not one.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Not even ''foreign'' legal authorities support any right to abortion.''' <u>141 International Legal Scholars</u> submitted an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson case declaring that “Whatever role international law plays in evaluating abortion regulations in the United States, it offers no basis for the existence of a human right to abortion.” (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185170/20210729071535904_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20141%20International%20Legal%20Scholars.pdf) “The minority of States that choose to allow elective abortion impose a standard gestational limit of twelve weeks, which is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“If the Court chooses to consult international law in this case, it will find there is no treaty that recognizes a so-called human right to abortion, nor has such a right been established through customary law. To the contrary, the practice across all regions demonstrates a consistent State prerogative to protect unborn life. Nor has any international court declared the existence of an international right to abortion, even in regions with the most permissive abortion regimes. Third-party actors seeking to invent a new right to abortion err when interpreting key international instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Rome Statute, and the International Conference on Population and Development. The clear language in those documents defies any attempt to repurpose them to create an international human right to abortion.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“On the other hand, provisions recognizing the unborn child as a rights-holder can be found in many international human rights instruments, including the American Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Most States choose to exercise the prerogative to protect unborn life by regulating abortion much more strictly than in the United States. Even in the minority of States that permit elective abortions, most specify a gestational limit of twelve weeks. That limit is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which allows elective abortion until fifteen weeks’ gestation, and then permits abortion only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Their conclusions were echoed by another international group,  <u>Center for Family and Human Rights </u>(www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185123/20210728132729071_CFam Amicus Brief Filed.pdf)
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The 2018 Mississippi Gestational Age Act banning most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, when the child in utero is known to suffer pain from common abortion procedures, is fully consistent with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States, which presumptively protects the right to life of children in the womb (hereinafter, the “Covenant”), ''International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'', Dec. 16, 1966, S. EXEC. DOC. E, 95-2 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976), as well as other human rights commitments and obligations of the United States.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“A careful reading of the text and history of the ''Covenant'' reveals that children in the womb were never excluded from the right to life, and that, more broadly, international law does not establish a human right to abortion in any circumstance, either through treaty obligation or by custom....
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Treaty law is the supreme Law of the Land and the Court has a constitutional responsibility to declare what the law is. The Court should make a finding of law that children in the womb are not excluded from the right to life under the ''Covenant'', given the plain meaning of the text of the ''Covenant'' when it was ratified by the U.S., the interpretation of the ''Covenant'' by the Executive branch, and its implementation by other States who are party to the treaty, therefore, laws to protect children in the womb from being arbitrarily deprived of their right to life, regardless of viability, are consistent with the  international human rights obligations of the United States.”  </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.
+
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.8
−
<ref>More about “No state can keep abortion legal...even the lawyer for the abortionists agreed.”
+
For most public issues, disagreement is over facts.9 The only disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and those who don't care about facts.10 A court that won’t address the facts that justify and necessitate a law, or hear evidence of those facts, violates Due Process and has no legitimate jurisdiction to review that law.11
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here is the excerpt from ''Roe’s'' Oral Arguments where the lawyer for the baby killers agreed that no state can keep abortion legal once the fact is established that babies of humans are humans from fertilization:
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Justice Stewart: Well, if – if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have an almost impossible case here, would you not?
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mrs Weddington, the attorney for baby killers: (Laughing) I would have a ''very'' difficult case.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here is the paragraph in the Roe ruling that refers to the admission of the baby killers’ lawyer:
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“ ‘[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 [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state]. The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded as much....”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is the “collapse clause” in ''Roe'' which makes the fact that babies of humans are humans not only relevant, but dispositive (this fact alone requires outlawing of abortion in every state, without any further evidence or law). Roe’s main holding was overturned, but this holding has never been disputed, and it is just as obvious (“of course”) today as it was 50 years ago.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Because reality matters. Evidence matters. Facts matter.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If there are 39 witnesses to a murder, should a prosecutor bring forward only one? 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, the readiness of “blue states” to support baby murder will seem to “cancel” the laws against it in “red states”, as if the clash is between competing ''opinions'' about “when life begins”. It needs to be clarified that the consensus of all states ''that have taken a position'' is that protectable “life begins” at fertilization, and the only clash is between those who are horrified by these murders and those who don’t care.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The premise of ''Roe'' is its statement of a ''fact'' that might arguably in the past have been reasonable, but it certainly is not now: that “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!
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;49½ years later, ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' said almost the same stupid thing, with a lot less grounds for such breathtaking ignorance:   
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Babies need grownups to set facts before courts that will wean them off their apathy about mass murder. </ref>
 
  
−
For most public issues, disagreement is over facts.
+
Footnotes: see [[Statement 1 + Footnotes]]
−
<ref>'''More about “For other public issues, division is over facts.”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Climate Change activists treat it as an emergency which is significantly affected by human activity. Their opponents say climate change is in fact no emergency, and even if it were, human activity has negligible impact on it. Both sides rely on “science”. (Of course pollution harms our health and quality of life, especially in the locality of the pollution, but most of that doesn’t measurably affect climate.)
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CRT controversy is entirely over facts. A very different set of facts of American history competes sometimes violently with the <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Immigration policy is a tug of war between claims of groups like NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies that so much immigration drives up prices, drives down wages, destroys national security, etc. and peer-reviewed economics studies claiming slight economic benefit to citizens at most levels, from a slight increase in immigration.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Division over covid was all about facts. Masks work, no they don’t. Vaccines save lives, no they cause millions of “excess deaths”.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Can boys who want to be girls join girls sports team and compete fairly? Concern for Biblical morality is in the background, but the public arguing is over the ''factual'' differences between boy and girl bodies, and how much of that is equalized by drugs and surgeries.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Legalization of marijuana starts and sputters as facts emerge and are alleged about the impact on crime, auto accidents, on the health of users, and on the  impact on holding down a job, which affects the whole economy.  </ref>
 
−
The only disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and those who don't care about facts.
 
−
<ref>'''More about “Disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and those who don't care about facts.”'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Finding #2.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Abortion controversy knows no comparable issue-driving dispute over whether babies of humans are real humans. There are practical difficulties in writing a “life of the mother” exception that will leave doctors free to save mothers who are truly endangered by their pregnancies without creating a loophole which babykillers will exploit, but there is no factual controversy about the full humanity of both mothers and their babies. 
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The fact is that there is no disagreement over the facts about preborn human life. The division is between authorities who rule babies are people, and courts and baby killers who say they don’t care about the facts. That should be very persuasive to simply point that out, both to the public and in court. The result we should expect is for courts to outlaw abortion, and for the vast majority of the public to become revolted by baby murders.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Especially to the extent prolifers and lawmakers publicly acknowledge the love and guidance of God, the deeper part of the Bible- and Constitution-based strategy laid out later in this book.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And most especially if Bible believers study and support the transfer of rights protection from courts to Congress, as laid out in the 14th Amendment, Section 5, as explained by Justice Clarence Thomas in several dissents and concurrences, including in Dobbs v. Jackson, and reviewed later in this book with the assistance of several Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
A court that won’t address the facts that justify and necessitate a law, or hear evidence of those facts, violates Due Process and has no legitimate jurisdiction to review that law.
 
−
<ref>'''More about "Courts that won’t address the facts that...necessitate a law...has no legitimate jurisdiction to review that law."
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus courts have no business reviewing abortion laws, for as long as they refuse to address the irrefutable evidence that babies of people are people. Such a court’s only legitimate business is to enforce them.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But is that what ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' has already done? Hasn’t SCOTUS gotten out of the abortion business and allowed states to outlaw abortion as thoroughly as their voters will permit?
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Maybe'' SCOTUS will stay out of the way of saving lives. We should not assume they will stay out of the way when “life of the mother” exceptions come before them, where the right of mothers to live is not balanced by the right of babies to live because states are ''still'' not irrefutably establishing the full humanity of babies, while also not clearly defining the degree of danger to a mother where the doctor may remove the child without legal consequences.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile state courts, even in prolife states, remain solidly in the way of saving lives, defying ''Dobbs'' which said courts should not block the choice of voters. Yet neither will state courts address the fact which justifies abortion restrictions: babies are people. Nor will state lawmakers, so far as I have read, and so far as my own conversations with lawmakers have accomplished, make that a central defense. Those '''courts have no business blocking prolife laws for as long as they dodge the fact which demands them.'''
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Now let’s consider longer range strategy, of how to get courts to outlaw abortion even in “blue states” (where abortion-supporting Democrats hold the majority). Blue state courts won’t have any prolife laws to overturn.  How can a case even be brought into a “blue state” court?
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One possible way to get courts to outlaw abortion in blue states is for a red state to sue a blue state for slaughtering its citizens. A controversy between states goes directly to SCOTUS, as provided in the Constitution.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another way would be if blue states still try to prosecute life savers for “sidewalk counseling” or for blocking doors, and the defendants raise these defenses. Prolife defendants have consistently made the humanity of babies central to their defense, but the arguments here are stronger than I have seen raised in any court.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The way provided in the Constitution is that courts stay out of deciding which humans get to murder and which must be slaughtered, but let Congress enact a “remedial” law (not a “substantive” law) and demand courts exercise their constitutional role of enforcing it.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Short of that, an indirect way abortion would be outlawed even in blue states through these arguments is simply that as they prevail in red states, they will educate lawmakers, judges, and the public, until hearts soften and murder becomes unthinkable again, and the Democrat party retires to “the ash heap of history”.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The same principles apply to freedom of religious expression which courts outlaw, calling it “establishment of religion”. Statements that are true should never be prosecuted, no matter how much they favor the Bible. Courts have no business challenging Christian expression if they are unwilling to investigate evidence of whether the Bible is true, and whether the human statements based on the Bible are true.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Will this open the floodgates to pagan expression?
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No, if the argument is made in court that the principles of the Bible are the outline of American law and freedoms, that no other religion or philosophy supports the fundamentals of our laws and freedoms, and that our government has a legitimate government interest in facilitating support for its own existence and for avoiding support for ideologies hostile to our laws and freedoms.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;More about this in the final section of this book, complete with SCOTUS precedents, Justice Thomas dissents, and nuggets from the 140 Amici who filed briefs in Dobbs v. Jackson.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is not a call for government censorship, but for driving hostile ideologies out of schools and subsidies, and making Freedom’s enemies pay for their own attacks.
 
−
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It will not close down discussion, but open the American Freedom forum wide, where Christians will be free to defend themselves and the public – and our children in public schools – will hear both sides. Maybe Christians will finally turn their gatherings into their own media as the Bible calls for. </ref> 
 
  
 
----
 
----
−
'''FOOTNOTES'''
+
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
 
----
 
----
  
−
<references />
+
===Bible Nugget===
  
−
----
 
 
<span style="color:#0f0">Matthew 16:24  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 
 
<span style="color:#0f0">Matthew 16:24  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 
  
Line 286: Line 185:
 
----
 
----
  
−
====Statement of Fact #2: Courts Accept the Fact-Finding Authority of Legislatures, Juries, and Experts for the same good reasons their findings persuade the public====
+
===Bible Nugget #2: The Cost of Success===
  
−
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).2
+
'''Matthew 16:24  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? '''
  
−
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 overturned the “unborn victims of violence” laws (based on “human babies are people”) of 38 states and Congress, despite many challenges.3
+
Huh? How do we fit this with Jesus coming so we could have Life “more abundantly”?
 +
 
 +
How from our Cross is Life discovered?
 +
How from such pain, can come such joy?
 +
The Gospel tracts say Jesus suffered
 +
so we’d need no works to employ.
 +
Then what’s this Cross we take and follow?
 +
Is there no “work” for us to do?
 +
My Cup of Love I’ll lift and swallow.
 +
I’ll “lose” false life, and find Life True.
 +
 
 +
==Statement of Facts #2 of 12: Courts Accept the Fact-Finding Authority of Legislatures, Juries, Experts for the same good reasons their findings persuade the public.==
 +
 
 +
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).1
 +
 
 +
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 overturned the “unborn victims of violence” laws (based on “human babies are people”) of 39 states and Congress, despite many challenges.2
  
 
To do so would require a 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.
 
To do so would require a 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.
  
−
Legislatures. Lawmakers are there by the choice of a majority of voters. They are bombarded by information from experts. They are scrutinized by other lawmakers. Many are lawyers, some of whom are constitutional scholars and past or future judges. They set the salaries of judges, and have the power to hold impeachment trials of judges. Congress, the national legislature, scrutinizes Supreme Court justices.  
+
'''Legislatures'''. Lawmakers are there by the choice of a majority of voters. They are bombarded by information from experts. They are scrutinized by other lawmakers. Many are lawyers, some of whom are constitutional scholars and past or future judges. They set the salaries of judges, and have the power to hold impeachment trials of judges. Congress, the national legislature, scrutinizes Supreme Court justices.  
 +
 
 +
Many Congressmen are equally qualified: 15 U.S. Senators have served on the Supreme Court, and more were nominated.3
  
−
Many Congressmen are equally qualified: 15 U.S. Senators have served on the Supreme Court, and more were nominated.4  
+
'''Juries''' are tested for impartiality. They are educated by the most qualified expert witnesses available. They study as long as necessary to establish truth – sometimes for months.4
  
−
Juries are tested for impartiality. They are educated by the most qualified expert witnesses available. They study as long as necessary to establish truth – sometimes for months.5
+
'''Expert Witnesses''' are the best experts money can buy, and they are scrutinized by the other side’s experts.5 
 +
 +
For all its faults, American court recognition of Fact Finders is among the world’s top methods of establishing reality that is available to humans, earning respect in the Court of Public Opinion along with their authority in courts of law.6 
  
−
Expert Witnesses are the best experts money can buy, and they are scrutinized by the other side’s experts.6
+
Footnotes: see [[Statement 2 + Footnotes]]
 +
----
 +
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
 +
----
 +
 
 +
===Bible Nugget===
 +
 
 +
<span style="color:#0f0">Mark 8:38  '''Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed''', when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
 +
 
 +
We Bible believing conservatives need to quit blaming social media and CIA censorship for our failures and stop censoring ourselves.
 +
 +
I offer a way of stating evidence which no judge, news reporter, Democrat, or unbeliever can refute, along with answering objections that have crippled prolife messaging and legal strategy. But we despair of reaching those who stop their ears to evidence. “What’s the use of tightening our message? You’re preaching to the choir. We know babies are people but those other people have their opinion too.”
 +
 +
I’m not "preaching to the choir". I’m passing out a new composition to the choir for a coming TV special.
 +
 +
Most of those who won’t listen, won’t vote either, rendering their willful ignorance relatively benign. Stop worrying about them. All they will do is hate you, lie about you, wreck your business – childish stuff. We progress by clearly articulating to the extent possible. The same Bible which is the main reason we care about babies promises all the protection we need to finish what we are here to do.
 +
 +
It isn’t just saving baby bodies where we self censor. Adult souls are lost. We hold back sharing what we know about God. Snap out of it. </span>
  
−
''Footnotes will be finished and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book  from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023.''
+
==Statement of Facts #3 of 12: The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS==
  
−
====Statement of Fact #3: The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS====
 
−
 
 
From Roe (1973) through Dobbs (2022), SCOTUS evaded that core issue.1  
 
From Roe (1973) through Dobbs (2022), SCOTUS evaded that core issue.1  
 
 
Line 312: Line 258:
 
“[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 [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state]. The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded as much....”4
 
“[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 [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state]. The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded as much....”4
 
 
−
Dobbs explicitly left this statement of the obvious untouched, saying “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”5 Dobbs did not say babies aren’t people. Dobbs did not say voters should still decide whether babies can be murdered in the face of proof that babies are in fact people.6 Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that “establishment” of this fact, independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment,7 dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime.8
+
Dobbs explicitly left this statement of the obvious untouched, saying “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”5 Dobbs did not say babies aren’t people. Dobbs did not say voters should still decide whether babies can be murdered in the face of proof that babies are ''in fact'' people.6 Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that “establishment” of this fact, independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment,7 dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime.8
 +
 
 +
This established '''fact''' is as relevant today as when Roe said “of course” it is.
 +
 
 +
This established '''fact''' is not disestablished by any judge’s alleged inability to understand it.9
 +
 
 +
This established '''FACT''' is not made irrelevant by any judge’s theory that the legal right of little humans to live is “impossible” to determine so it should be decided by their value to big humans.10
 +
 
 +
If only those ''legally recognized'' as “persons” were people, slavery could still be legal and the 14th Amendment would mean nothing. Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human.11 The Amendment protects those who are '''IN FACT''' people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people “as a matter of law”.12 
 +
 
 +
Footnotes: see [[Statement 3 + Footnotes]]
 +
 
 +
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
−
This established fact is as relevant today as when Roe said “of course” it is.
+
=Part 2: The Power of Personhood=
  
−
This established fact is not disestablished by any judge’s alleged inability to understand it.9
+
==Statement of Facts #4 of 12: Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life==
  
−
This established FACT is not made irrelevant by any judge’s theory that the legal right of little humans to live is “impossible” to determine so it should be decided by their value to big humans.10
+
Detectable heartbeats and brain waves are evidence that a person has not yet died, throughout state and federal law.1 Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that a person has begun to live.2
  
−
If only those legally recognized as “persons” were people, slavery could still be legal and the 14th Amendment would mean nothing. Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human. The Amendment protects those who are IN FACT people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people “as a matter of law”.11
+
<small>The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: American College of Pediatricians <> Heartbeat International <> World Faith Foundation and Institute for Faith and Family <> National Catholic Bioethics Center, et al <> Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> Jewish Prolife Foundation <> American Association of Prolife Obstretricians </small>
  
 +
Footnotes: see [[Statement 4 + Footnotes]]
  
−
''Footnotes will be finished and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023. ''
+
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.  
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
−
====Statement of Fact #4: Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life====
+
==Statement of Facts #5 of 12: Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders==
  
−
Detectable heartbeats and brain waves are evidence that a person has not yet died, throughout state and federal law.1 Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that a person has begun to live.
+
But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of a supposedly 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.1
  
 +
The “Mistake of Fact” that is the premise of letting voters decide whether to continue judge-approved genocide according to the “value” they place on little people is that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant. That premise was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.2
  
−
Footnotes will be finished and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023.
+
That is an “erroneous factual premise”. The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable3 nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive.4 The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that interpretation of Dobbs’ holding, 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.5   
  
−
====Statement of Fact #5: Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders====
+
<small>'''Mini-lexicon of legal terms'''
  
−
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. 1
+
'''Mistake of Fact:''' A statement of facts upon which a ruling was based, which is later shown to be untrue. It means the same as “erroneous factual premise”.
  
−
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.2
+
'''Stare Decisis:''' Hesitancy about reversing previous precedents. Precedents should only be reversed for very good reasons, because they affect how millions live, so the more law changes back and forth, the more that unsettles society.
  
−
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.3 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.4
+
'''Dispositive:''' Evidence so overwhelming that it is final. It settles a matter, with no need of further evidence. As in Matthew 26:65 “What further need have we of witnesses?”
 +
Holding: The part of a ruling that demands obedience, or that is a conclusion that is the basis for the ruling.  
  
 +
'''Overruled''': Means the same as “overturned”, “repealed”, or “vacated”. It is where a court changes its mind, deciding that a previous precedent was “wrongly decided” or “incorrect”. Often it also means the previous ruling was unconstitutional, although nobody is allowed to use that word out loud.
  
 +
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Illinois Right to Life <> Center for Religious Expression <> Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown </small> 
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
Footnotes: see [[Statement 5 + Footnotes]]
  
−
====Statement of Fact #6: The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for many to grasp. But what distinguishes us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known pre-conscious stage====
+
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
−
Part of Roe’s definition of “person” was “infused with a soul”.1 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 sacrifice one's interests for another,2 which is how John 15:13 defines “love”. And conversely, to destroy one’s own body.3
+
==Statement of Facts #6 of 12: The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for many to grasp. But what distinguishes us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known pre-conscious stage==
  
−
These differences, along with self awareness and the capacity to choose between good and evil4 – to behave either as an angel or as a demon, can’t be explained by any known physical process. These differences justify greater legal protection of humans than of animals.  
+
Part of the definition of “person” is “infused with a soul”, Roe v. Wade1 and dictionaries say.2 SCOTUS has not disagreed. “Consciousness” is another word for what has no physical explanation, and that distinguishes us from animals.  
  
−
Since 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. 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,5 a response not everybody chooses, indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth. And also indicating that when a baby is killed by dismemberment, acid, or sucking out the brain, a self-aware conscious soul feels the pain, understands the cruelty, and if out-of-body near-death experiences are real, sees who is doing it.
+
Animal behavior is predictable within breeds, indicating little “choice”. They are not like people who can choose to behave like angels or demons. Nothing physical can explain our ability to choose against our own bodies: to sacrifice our own interests for others, which is how John 15:13 defines “love”;3 or to destroy ourselves in hate.4
 +
 +
Roe v Wade was not out of line to consult “those trained in... theology” who study souls, as well as doctors who study bodies, to clarify who to count as human with an unalienable right to life.5
 +
 +
The extent of human choice is said by Psalm 22:10 to enable an unborn baby to place his trust in God. Luke 1:44 similarly reports that a baby at 6 months heard a righteous voice [and/or felt the righteous Presence of God] and responded with joy,6 a response not everybody chooses, indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth. To human consciousness, we give greater legal protection than to animals.7 
 +
Because nothing physical explains such powers, undeveloped bodies don’t establish undeveloped consciousness.  
  
−
Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”, or between “meaningful life” and life which courts are free to terminate.6 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.         
+
Since a “soul” without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined,8 the consensus of fact finders is, in effect, that abortion kills babies with conscious souls.
 +
 +
All this testimony indicates that when a baby is killed by dismemberment, acid, or sucking out the brain, it is not some non-sentient animal, some pre-human “potential life”, but a self-aware conscious soul that feels the pain, understands the cruelty, and if out-of-body near-death experiences are real, sees, along with God, who is doing it.
 +
Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”, or between “meaningful life” and life which courts are free to terminate.9 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.10        
  
−
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.
+
The failure of some people, and of some religions, to grasp the full humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of many groups of born persons.
 +
    28/430 words
  
−
As Roe correctly established, it can be useful in clarifying who to count as a human with an unalienable right to life, to consult the religion from which that right was copied into America’s founding documents. But religions which oppose the foundation of American law – equal  rights for all humans, merit little credibility in American courts when their claims justify destruction of an entire people group – such as the claim that souls do not enter bodies until around birth.  There can be “free exercise” of religions which do not equally reverence all human life only to the extent their “exercise” does not violate the rights of others or the laws enacted to protect them.7
+
<small>Mini-lexicon of legal terms:
  
 +
'''SCOTUS:'''  Supreme Court Of The United States
  
 +
'''Stage of Gestation:''' Any time during the development of a baby in the womb. This isn’t exactly a legal term, but it is not common outside courts.
 +
 +
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Foundation for Moral Law, Lutherans for Life <>  American College of Pedia-tricians <>  Jewish Prolife Foundation <> Dr. Robin Pierucci, M.D. </small>
 +
 +
See footnotes at: [[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]]
 +
 +
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
=Part 3: Myth Busters=
  
−
====Statement of Fact #7: Congress has ''Already'' Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion====
+
==Statement of Facts #7 of 12: Congress has ''Already'' Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment ''already'' authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion, ''without'' allowing Congress to legalize it==
  
 
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).1  
 
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).1  
Line 370: Line 402:
 
The reason 18 U.S.C. 1841(d) has had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in its authority to establish dispositive facts, but  because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited it to establish what Roe correctly said once “established” would “of course” require the end of legal abortion.  
 
The reason 18 U.S.C. 1841(d) has had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in its authority to establish dispositive facts, but  because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited it to establish what Roe correctly 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.3 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 draws not only courts, but society, closer to reality.4
+
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.3 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 pulls not only courts, but society, closer to reality.4 32/254 words
 +
 
 +
<small>Mini-Lexicon of legal terms:
  
 +
'''Personhood Law:''' A law stating that an unborn baby is a person. A human being. A“human person”, as Dobbs v. Jackson stated. That is, a person with all the legal rights of any other human.
  
 +
'''“In Utero”:''' In the womb. An unborn baby is in the womb - “in utero”.
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
'''“Homo Sapiens”:''' humans. “The species homo sapiens”: the human race.
  
 +
'''Dispositive:''' Proved. Evidence so strong that no more is needed.
  
 +
'''Cited:''' Quoted. Referred to it.
  
−
====Statement of Fact #8: Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”====
+
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and from Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College <>  Judge Bork</small>
  
−
Neither Dobbs nor Roe distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”.2 The word “person” in the 14th Amendment means “An individual human being...man, woman, or child...consisting of body and soul.” The word “child” in the definition includes unborn children, since to be “with child” means to be pregnant.3 
+
See footnotes at: [[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]]
−
Therefore the Amendment’s “equal protection” of all “persons” means of all humans, including those unborn. Only the Amendment’s first clause is about born people. That doesn’t limit the rest of the Amendment to protecting only those who are born.4
 
−
Dobbs cites the belief that “a human person comes into being at conception” without distinguishing between the two words.5
 
  
−
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)
+
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.  
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
−
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”.6       
+
==Statement #8 of 12: Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”==
  
−
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”.  
+
Neither Roe nor Dobbs distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”. [2] Nor does the 14th Amendment leave any human unprotected.
  
−
Even if reverence for all human life from fertilization were not “deeply rooted in America’s law and traditions”, courts err in making that history the test of whether rights merit 14th Amendment protection, because the Amendment was created to end slavery. By the “deeply rooted” test slavery would still be legal, because freedom for slaves had zero historical support. There is a direct test by which babies do merit 14th Amendment protection from abortion that does not require a romp through history.7
+
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 [“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.’” 410 U.S. 113, 133(1973)
  
−
Nor does it matter if the Amendment authors even wanted to protect all humans. In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as developed by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.
+
Dobbs cites the belief that “a human person comes into being at conception” without distinguishing between the two words. [3]
  
−
“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)8
+
The word “person” in the 14th Amendment meant “An individual human being...man, woman, or child...consisting of body and soul.” The word “child” in that 1828 definition included unborn children, since to be “with child” meant to be pregnant. [4]
  
 +
Therefore the Amendment’s “nor shall any state deprive any person of life” and “equal protection” of every “person” means every human, including those unborn. Nothing about the first clause keeps later clauses from protecting unborn humans. [5]
  
 +
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”. [6]
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
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”.
  
 +
Although Dobbs showed by disproving the opposite that reverence for all human life from fertilization was “deeply rooted in America’s law and traditions”, that is not why rights merit 14th Amendment protection. By the “deeply rooted” test, slavery would be legal today, since freedom for slaves had zero historical support.
  
 +
Nor does it ''matter'' if the Amendment authors even wanted to protect all humans. In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as developed by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.
  
−
====Statement of Fact #9: SCOTUS never denied that state personhood laws are strong evidence in an abortion case====
+
There is a direct test of whether babies merit 14th Amendment protection that does not require a romp through history: [7] see if their parents are humans.
  
−
SCOTUS never said Personhood Laws are impotent. SCOTUS only said a personhood law by itself, without penalties, (that is, a law that says ‘babies are people, but we won’t stop their murderers’) doesn’t yet restrict abortion, so it can’t yet generate a case.  
+
“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) [8]
−
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)1
+
 
 +
FOOTNOTES: see [[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]]
 +
 
 +
<small>Mini-lexicon of legal terms:
 +
 
 +
'''14th Amendment:''' Ratified in 1868, the third year after the Civil War ended, it ruled that every state must give everyone under its laws the “equal protection” of its laws. It gave Congress authority to “enforce” the rights listed in the Constitution when state legislatures can’t or won’t, and to block state laws that protect some people less. Starting five years later, the Supreme Court usurped that authority of Congress for itself, and instead of protecting rights listed in the Constitution it made up rights not in the Constitution that are hostile to constitutional rights. More about that later.
 +
 
 +
'''Equal Protection Clause:''' The clause in the 14th Amendment that requires states to give “equal protection of the laws” to all its citizens.
 +
 
 +
The footnotes are enriched by selections from the Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Lee J. Strang <> Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George  <> Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children  <>  Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and by selections from the 1996 debate between Judge Robert Bork and Professor Nathan Schluetter</small>
 +
 
 +
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.  
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.  
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>'
  
−
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 because in oral arguments, Mississippi’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.2   
+
==Statement of Facts #9 of 12: When pregnancies develop into medical emergencies requiring separation of mother and child to save the mother, the child has an equally fundamental right to life and medical care.==
  
−
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 to outlaw abortion as thoroughly as slavery!
+
A legislature’s balancing of their interests cannot, therefore, be reviewed by “strict scrutiny”.2 Nor does alleged insufficiency of a “medical emergency” exception from a general abortion ban justify a court overturning the ban in the 99% of cases where no emergency is alleged.3 Legislatures are better equipped to deliberate about and secure the rights of all citizens than courts whose focus is the parties before them.4
  
 +
SCOTUS never denied that a legislature’s “personhood” statements in an abortion ban are strong evidence.5 That evidence is not mitigated by a ban’s exceptions.6  It is not made irrelevant because baby killers “rely” on killing babies.7            28/130 words
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
<small>Mini-Lexicon of legal terms:
 +
'''
 +
Fundamental Right:''' This is a term not found in the Constitution but made up by SCOTUS for the rights SCOTUS makes up  which often displace rights actually listed in the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas is eloquent on this point. More about this later.
  
 +
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: A Foundation for Moral Law <> Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation <> 396 State Legislators from 41 States</small>
  
 +
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
−
====Statement of Fact #10: “Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions====
+
==Statement of Facts #10 of 12: Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, and by the Declaration, which gives the purpose of the Constitution and  rests its own authority on the revelation of God1 in the Bible==
  
−
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 was generally interpreted, and as many prolifers still believe.1
+
Roe v Wade was not out of line to consult “those trained in... theology” who study souls, as well as doctors who study bodies, to clarify who to count as human with an unalienable right to life.3
 +
 +
America’s Freedom springs from “all men are created equal” and “equal protection of the laws” for all humans even if their looks, language, wealth, strength, ancestry, power, or faith are different.4 These rights have proven such a blessing to the world that their source, the Bible, deserves the fair hearing owed any witness whose reliability has been confirmed, when it promises still greater blessings if we will equally protect humans whose physical size is different.5 
 +
 +
Its testimony is not “cumulative”, but “probative”.6 It is not to be feared as dispositive or compulsory: American freedom balances  human understanding of how best to apply Biblical principles to government against the willingness of voting majorities to follow those principles. Even that is a Biblical principle legitimized in 1 Samuel 8.7
 +
 +
The history of slavery, Prohibition, and abortion illustrate the “willingness” factor. The probative value of the testimony of God is proved by the fact that without it, slavery would never have ended, and the prolife movement would never have begun. Which makes it probative to observe that not only the 14th Amendment, but also the revelation of God, requires this state, as it does every state, to outlaw all trampling of fundamental rights of any class of people, including abortion of babies.8 Where the two authorities say the same thing, the Bible, for all its alleged ambiguity, is better understood and more trusted than the Constitution which has indeed proven “a thing of wax” in the nimble fingers of even the most scrupulous judges.9
 +
 +
Without God – without belief in a more objective standard of right and wrong than the “value” that voters place on “different” people through “evolving community standards”, it is impossible to understand fundamental rights.10
  
−
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!       
+
Courts have demonstrated this impossibility by so often confusing abominations for rights, decimating those whom Jesus said “forbid them not to come unto Me”, denying that He created them, murdering 17% of them, sodomizing 20% of the survivors, and censoring 100% of His teachings in schools.11
  
−
Practical 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).  
+
That destruction of the 14th Amendment (1868) began when “Substantive Due Process”,  pioneered in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was applied in United States v. Cruikshank 92 U. S. 542 (1876) to acquit a white Democrat mililtia of murdering “as many as 165” black Republicans and burning down the courthouse they were defending.12
 +
 +
Uncensoring God does not “establish religion”. It does not compel belief, action or endorsement. It simply allows judges and voters to make informed decisions. It is part of fact-finding. It is part of reasoning. Part of embracing reality. Part of examining “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Judges must stop punishing people for telling the truth just because the truth favors God.13
 +
 +
Uncensoring the Bible does not require equal weight for claims of religions that deny equal rights for all.14
 +
 +
For example, some claim “souls” don’t enter babies until long after fertilization, or even long after birth.15 Their claims do not “cancel” the mountain of consensus of court-recognized fact finders that souls are present from the beginning. Our Constitution and laws reject their unequal rights, and are appropriately wary of their rationales for their unequal rights. The credibility of every witness is not equal. Credibility is earned.   
 +
There can be “free exercise” of religions hostile to “equal protection of the laws” only to the extent their “exercise” does not threaten the rights of others or violate the laws enacted to protect them – laws ultimately decided by voting majorities, hopefully well informed through the uncensoring of reality.16              39/520 words
  
−
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.
+
<small>Mini-Lexicon of legal terms:
  
−
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 54,2 cannot be taken seriously, and certainly merits no attention as it faults laws for being no better than is humanly possible.
+
'''Cumulative''': testimony so redundant that it wastes the court’s time
 +
Dispositive: testimony so strong that it settles the issue with no more
 +
Probative: probative facts establish, or contribute to, proof. Probative value is the degree of relevance of evidence.  
  
 +
'''Prohibition''': From 1920 to 1932, drinking (alcohol) was made illegal, banned by an actual Constitutional Amendment. Actual alcohol consumption dropped by about 50%, or at least that is how much Cirrhosis of the Liver cases dropped. During that time the drop in drinking led to an economic boom, called the “Roaring Twenties”, which unfortunately were not remembered for their prosperity but for their immorality. In 1928, the prosperity collapsed into a “Great Depression” due to cheating by stock market investors. In 1932 Americans wanted liquor so bad they ratified another Constitutional Amendment repealing the 1920 Amendment.
  
 +
'''Substantive Due Process''': As Justice Clarence Thomas eloquently explains – see Statement #11 footnotes, this phrase was made up by SCOTUS to justify making up what it calls “fundamental rights” as its tool of repealing laws it doesn’t like. It gets its name from the SCOTUS claim that the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment gives SCOTUS its authority to make up rights and call them “fundamental”. But “Due Process” only meant the legal procedures which everyone must be given equally, to defend their rights in court when necessary. The phrase has nothing to do with identifying what rights are protectable. But “Substantive” means those rights we care about, that the Constitution protects. Like freedom of speech or religion. Because “substantive” means substantial, serious rights, and “due process” has nothing to do with identifying any rights, the LONANG Institute observes in Statement #11 notes that “substantive due process” is an oxymoron.
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Foundation for Moral Law and Lutherans for Life <> Jewish Prolife Foundation <> LONANG Institute <> U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations <> Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence</small>
  
 +
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
 +
=Part 4: Conclusions=
  
−
====Statement of Fact #11: The 14th Amendment requires this state, as every state, to thoroughly outlaw abortion. Restrictions of abortions for the purpose of saving mothers cannot be reviewed by strict scrutiny,1 even though the safety of mothers is a fundamental right, because the safety of their babies is an equally fundamental right.  Legislatures can best delineate the most life-saving balance of harms. 2 ====
+
==Statement of Facts #11 of 12: The 14th Amendment gives federal courts no “due process” authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the “right” to murder, and gives Congress no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights, like taking a baby’s right to Life==
  
−
The indecision of judges over whether babies of humans are humans does not neutralize the consensus of fact finders that babies are fully “human persons” – an abstention does not cancel an “aye”.  
+
The sole federal authority over state laws regarding the rights of their own citizens is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.1 Contrary to SCOTUS rulings, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides:
 +
 +
* '''Congress authorized, not courts.''' Congress, not courts, determines the manner and scope of federal intervention in states whose laws don’t protect their citizens’ rights.2 Congress is not limited to enforcing only those rights of which SCOTUS approves, nor only to the extent that SCOTUS approves,3 nor only when state governments, not individuals, directly violate rights.4
 +
 +
* Federal courts aren’t permitted to stop either states or Congress from protecting enumerated rights (like Life), or to repeal their laws for conflicting with unenumerated [not listed in the Constitution] “rights” (like the “right” to murder babies), or to intervene in states’ protection of rights beyond prosecuting violations of federal laws.5
 +
 +
* Nor can Congress stop states from protecting enumerated rights. Neither Congress nor federal courts may overturn a state law protecting the lives of unborn babies from surgical abortion, chemical abortion, or contraceptives.6
 +
 +
* The rights subject to federal enforcement are not those made up by SCOTUS allegedly based on the “Due Process” clause,7 but those listed in the Constitution, referred to as “privileges and immunities”8 (including, for unborn babies, the “privilege” of life and  “immunity” from “cruel and unusual punishment” and execution “without due process of law”).9
 +
* Enumerated Rights recognized before the Constitution existed are not excluded from Congressional intervention.10
 +
 +
* '''“Substantive Due Process”''' is the sophistry by which SCOTUS turned the Constitution’s Authority to Define Rights, and Congress’ 14th Amendment Section 5 Authority to Enforce Rights, into its own authority to reclassify abominations as “rights”.11 It is an illegal, unconstitutional, Freedom-crushing fraud from Hell fomenting a long line of Landmark Abomination Cases.12
  
−
That consensus makes abortion legally recognizable as killing innocent human beings, which is legally recognizable as murder, which was never constitutionally protected or legal, but is what even Roe correctly said “of course” requires abortion’s legality to end.  
+
<small>Mini-lexicon of legal terms:
 +
 +
'''Due Process:''' The duty of courts to give all parties to cases the fair and equal procedures and opportunities for defending themselves.
  
−
No judge can squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other.3 It made irrelevant whether their destroyers “rely” on destroying them.4 The only constitutional 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.
+
(This argument for ending SCOTUS’ long line of Landmark Abomination Cases continues in Part Two of this book where its focus on SCOTUS-mandated murder of babies created in the Image of God is extended to SCOTUS’ censorship of God Himself.)
 +
 +
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amici who filed briefs in Dobbs v. Jackson: Lonang Institute <> Christian Legal Society <> AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, Roman Catholic and Protestant Religious and Civil Rights Organizations <> Senators Josh Hawley, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz. And from Judge Robert Bork <> Nathan Schlueter, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Hillsdale College, (when he debated Judge Bork in 2003 he was assistant professor of pre-law and political science at St. Ambrose University. Author, “Unborn Persons and the Fourteenth Amendment.” 2002.) <> Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law School <> Legal Information Institute, Cornell University <> Justice Clarence Thomas, dissents and concurrences <> justia.com <> James Gray Pope,  Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law <> Libby Adler professor of law and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies, Northeastern University  Christmas, 2023''</small>
  
−
The prohibition of tyranny over any class of humans by any other has greater authority than that of the Constitution: it is also the command of the Declaration, which lays out the purpose of the Constitution, and rests its own authority on the revelation of God5 in the Bible.6 Without God it is impossible to understand fundamental rights,7 as courts have so magnificently demonstrated by so often confusing abominations for rights, decimating those whom Jesus said “forbid them not to come unto Me”, denying that He created them, murdering 17% of them, sodomizing 20% of the survivors, and censoring 100% of His teachings in schools.8 That began with the development of the principles of “Substantive Due Process” in United States v. Cruikshank 92 U. S. 542 (1876), which were applied in that case to acquit a white Democrat mililtia of murdering “as many as 165” black Republicans and burning down the courthouse they were defending.9
+
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
  
 +
==Statement #12 of 12:Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable. The authority to impeach subsumes the authority to codify more surgical correctives.==
  
 +
Any judge interfering with this state’s compliance with the 14th Amendment and its ancient authority to protect its people1  – the central reason governments exist, is an accessory to genocide according to the uncontradicted consensus of court-recognized fact finders,2 and is guilty of exercising the legislative function, in order to perpetuate genocide through an unconstitutional ruling,3 which exceeds the judicial powers given by any Constitution, which is Malfeasance in Office, a ground of impeachment.4
  
 +
The authority to impeach subsumes the authority to codify more surgical correctives, including (1) giving the state Supreme Court original jurisdiction over any challenge to a law, (2) requiring that review be expedited, (3) requiring a supermajority of the Court to suspend a law, (4) questioning justices in a public hearing about the constitutionality of their ruling, and (5) overturning the ruling with a supermajority of the legislature.5
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
Should any federal judge so interfere with this state’s constitutional duty, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action,6 along with exercising its Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 authority to make “exceptions” and “regulations” designed to end SCOTUS’ long line of landmark abomination cases.  
  
 +
This state also appeals to its congressional delegation to exercise its life-saving and rights-protecting authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment whose plain words give Congress, not courts, the authority to correct state violations of Rights,7 which subsumes the authority to define their scope and to balance competing interests, while the “privileges and immunities” clause identifies as protectable rights those listed in the Constitution.8
  
 +
Official world-wide definitions of “crimes against humanity” apply “to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission”, whether elected representatives or unelected judges.”9
  
−
====Statement of Fact #12: Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable====
+
Any court review of this law must be expedited, because lives are lost with each day that courts delay.10  7/230 words
  
−
Any state judge interfering with this state’s compliance with the 14th Amendment and its ancient authority to protect its people1  – the central reason governments exist, is an accessory to genocide according to the uncontradicted consensus of court-recognized fact finders, and 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.2
+
<small>Mini-Lexicon of Legal terms:
  
−
Should any federal judge so interfere, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action.3 
+
'''Malfeasance in office:''' official misconduct; violation of a public trust or obligation; specifically, the doing of an act which is positively unlawful or wrongful.
  
−
This state also appeals to its congressional delegation to exercise its life-saving and rights-protecting authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment whose plain words give Congress, not courts, the authority to correct state violations Rights,4 which subsumes the authority to define their scope and balance competing interests, while the “privileges and immunities” clause identifies as protectable rights those listed in the Constitution.4
+
'''Subsumes:''' Includes. To include or place within something larger or more comprehensive: encompass as a subordinate or component element red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term "color"
  
 +
The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: 396 State Legislators from 41 States <> Melinda Thybault/Moral Outcry <> and by Matthew J. Franck, Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute and visiting lecturer in politics at Princeton University</small>
  
−
''Footnotes will be edited and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'': Christmas, 2023''
+
----
 +
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
 +
<br><small>[[Statement_1_+_Footnotes]] Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
 +
<br>[[Statement_2_+_Footnotes]] “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
 +
<br>[[Statement_3_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
 +
<br>[[Statement_4_+_Footnotes]] Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
 +
<br>[[Statement_5_+_Footnotes]] Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
 +
<br>[[Statement_6_+_Footnotes]] What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
 +
<br>[[Statement_7_+_Footnotes]] Congress ''already'' passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.  
 +
<br>[[Statement_8_+_Footnotes]] SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
 +
<br>[[Statement_9_+_Footnotes]] Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
 +
<br>[[Statement_10_+_Footnotes]] Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
 +
<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
 +
<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>

Latest revision as of 04:41, 3 January 2024

Forum (Articles) Offer Partners Rules Tips SaveTheWorld:FAQ Begin! Donate

Saving Babies from judges & voters
Saving Souls from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion

by proving in courts of law and in the Court of Public Opinion that: 

 The right to live of a baby and of a judge are equal
 The Bible & reality-challenged religions are NOT equal


A strategy of Life that relies on the Author of Life
for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen

by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

This book offers twelve statements of fact about babies and abortion which I challenge any voter, lawyer, lawmaker, or judge to refute. Their footnotes contain nuggets from the 140 "Amicus" briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. These statements are designed to soften the resistance of voters to outlawing baby murder, when presented in public, and to force judges to outlaw abortion in every state, when presented in court.

They are truths designed to be so unignorable, that when any lawmaker includes them in the “findings of facts” of a prolife law, in any state, prodeath fury will help publicize them with each advance through legislative deadlines. When friends of babies see them survive scrutiny, the force of these truths will grow like a snowball rolling down a hill.

But murdering babies is only the most egregious of many Landmark Abomination Cases. Their common thread is usurping authority which the Constitution assigns to others, and equating the Bible with spurious religions. “Never let a crisis go to waste”, say the enemies of God, but God is the true master of turning evil into an opportunity for good. It’s time. Let’s end the Supreme Court’s war against God.

The very fact that abortion is the worst of the ways the United States Supreme Court has turned American law upside down creates an opportunity to heal that branch of our government, and heal all the harm to our nation and its culture and morals that it has caused. As Professor Nathan Schluetter at Hillsdale College observes, “We must not let this opportunity pass to boldly challenge the prevailing jurisprudence and its attendant epistemological and moral skepticism with respect to abortion.”

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 able to soften hearts to the silent screams of Jesus' little brothers and His quiet knocking on hearts' doors. 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” in prolife legislation, along with leveling with the public about the Scriptures which are the real reason we even care.

Cover Cartoon.jpg

Why these solutions may help even where abortion is already outlawed

(1) They could defeat a national abortion legalization.

(2) They could help you sue a nearby “blue state” for helping its baby killers murder your children.

(3) They could help if your district judges join the courtroom rebellion against Dobbs in other states.

(4) They could help meet challenges in the Court of Public Opinion, for example through a Resolution that irrefutably addresses every objection you have ever heard, as understandable to voters as it is irrefutable to judges. That would help the public see through future judicial gaslighting, and support judicial reform: ie. www.savetheworld .saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_ stop_judges_from_legislating

(5) I could sure use your feedback. Proverbs 15:22.

Ending legal abortion everywhere in close to a year

(the goal of the following bill language)
requires a law whose Findings of Facts:


  • 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

(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! See below for Expedited Review federal rules.)

WORD COUNTS: Using only the first boldfaced paragraph of each of these 12 Findings, in the “findings of facts” of a prolife law, will total about 200 words. The complete Findings, without footnotes, total nearly 3000 words. For the advantages of including enough information in a prolife law for the Findings to defend themselves, see “Too Lengthy?” below.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: I am not a lawyer. But writing about prolife legal defenses designed to bring legal abortion to an end, and Scriptures calling for that goal, for 25 years in my Prayer * Action News, being uncertified as a lawyer, has created the opportunity for a remarkable interaction with Planned Barrenhoods priciest lawyers. Because news reporters wouldn’t report that my reasoning was designed as legal defenses in court, or that they were grounded in the Bible, what that left was their accusation that I advocated crime; whereas had my defenses been successful they would have allowed citizens to stop murderers legally, putting an end to the reason citizens took action.

Contents

John 10:10  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.


Abortion steals futures and family, kills the most innocent, and destroys economies and nations. Abortion isn’t the only Thief. The voices which self-censor to indulge inaction deny themselves Life More Abundantly.


Bible Nugget: free wisdom, guaranteed success

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, [without finding fault]; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. (Gr. διακρινω not withdrawn from, ie. by lack of support from actions, or opposed, ie. by indecision)

Matthew 21:21 ...If ye have faith, and doubt not (Gr. διακρινω) ...ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. 22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Abortion steals futures and families, kills the most innocent, and destroys economies and nations. Abortion isn’t the only Thief. The voices which self-censor to indulge their own inaction deny themselves, not just their neighbors, Life More Abundantly.

If you are not satisfied with life less abundantly – ongoing slaughter of innocents – you won’t be satisfied now that the fate of babies is decided by the “value” that voters place on little people. You will keep searching for a strategy to end all the slaughter: to both outlaw it, and make it unthinkable to all but the worst of murderers.

If you believe you will reach every good goal you pursue with all your being, Matthew 21:21-22, you won’t be turned from ending the slaughter in every state by experts who tell you that is impossible which rules out a strategy for achieving it. You will search until you find God’s way to do God’s will.

You won’t say “I'm not smart enough to question prolife legal authorities who advise giving up”, if you believe James 1:5 which promises you all the wisdom you need to do good. Nor will you ever say you are not smart enough to read and understand legal briefs, court rulings, or to reason with lawmakers, lawyers, and prolife leaders, as necessary.

If you believe God, you will not excuse yourself from God’s call because you can’t talk well, like Moses, whom God answered “Who made mouths?” Exodus 4:11. Nor will you excuse yourself to God, saying you are but a child against the world’s superbrains, like Jeremiah, whom God answered, “Stop saying that! It is MY words you will speak, and I am no child!” Jeremiah 1:6-8.

If you believe God, you will shine God’s light wherever you find Darkness, Matthew 5:13-16. Since nothing is darker than murdering your own baby, you will seek God’s help as you oppose this evil, and none of these excuses will withdraw you from action.

Final Warning: read this at your own risk

Warning: read at your own risk. Rough reading Ahead, that may knock you from your TV chair.

Findings of Facts which No Judge can Squarely Address and Keep Abortion Legal

Part 1: Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders

Try to imagine how a judge, reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts, would be able to dodge this evidence - in fact, see if you can find ANYONE who can refute these facts - as opposed to not caring about facts - that is, not caring about reality:

Statement of Fact #1 of 12: Court­-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize

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,2 thousands of expert witnesses who were not contested,3 38 state legislatures,4 individual judges,5 and Congress.6

If the unanimous – uncontested – finding of every court-recognized fact-finder is not enough ‘establishment’ for the court to know a fact, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.

No legal authority has ruled that any unborn baby of a human is not in fact a human person, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.7

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.8 For most public issues, disagreement is over facts.9 The only disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and those who don't care about facts.10 A court that won’t address the facts that justify and necessitate a law, or hear evidence of those facts, violates Due Process and has no legitimate jurisdiction to review that law.11

Footnotes: see Statement 1 + Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Bible Nugget

Matthew 16:24  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 

Huh? How do we fit this with Jesus coming so we could have Life “more abundantly”?

How from our Cross is Life discovered?

How from such pain, can come such joy?

The Gospel tracts say Jesus suffered

so we’d need no works to employ.

Then what’s this Cross we take and follow?

Is there no “work” for us to do?

My Cup of Love I’ll lift and swallow.

I’ll “lose” false life, and find Life True.


Bible Nugget #2: The Cost of Success

Matthew 16:24  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 

Huh? How do we fit this with Jesus coming so we could have Life “more abundantly”? 

How from our Cross is Life discovered? 
How from such pain, can come such joy? 
The Gospel tracts say Jesus suffered
so we’d need no works to employ.
Then what’s this Cross we take and follow?
Is there no “work” for us to do?
My Cup of Love I’ll lift and swallow.
I’ll “lose” false life, and find Life True.

Statement of Facts #2 of 12: Courts Accept the Fact-Finding Authority of Legislatures, Juries, Experts for the same good reasons their findings persuade the public.

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).1

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 overturned the “unborn victims of violence” laws (based on “human babies are people”) of 39 states and Congress, despite many challenges.2

To do so would require a 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.

Legislatures. Lawmakers are there by the choice of a majority of voters. They are bombarded by information from experts. They are scrutinized by other lawmakers. Many are lawyers, some of whom are constitutional scholars and past or future judges. They set the salaries of judges, and have the power to hold impeachment trials of judges. Congress, the national legislature, scrutinizes Supreme Court justices.

Many Congressmen are equally qualified: 15 U.S. Senators have served on the Supreme Court, and more were nominated.3

Juries are tested for impartiality. They are educated by the most qualified expert witnesses available. They study as long as necessary to establish truth – sometimes for months.4

Expert Witnesses are the best experts money can buy, and they are scrutinized by the other side’s experts.5

For all its faults, American court recognition of Fact Finders is among the world’s top methods of establishing reality that is available to humans, earning respect in the Court of Public Opinion along with their authority in courts of law.6

Footnotes: see Statement 2 + Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Bible Nugget

Mark 8:38  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

We Bible believing conservatives need to quit blaming social media and CIA censorship for our failures and stop censoring ourselves.

I offer a way of stating evidence which no judge, news reporter, Democrat, or unbeliever can refute, along with answering objections that have crippled prolife messaging and legal strategy. But we despair of reaching those who stop their ears to evidence. “What’s the use of tightening our message? You’re preaching to the choir. We know babies are people but those other people have their opinion too.”

I’m not "preaching to the choir". I’m passing out a new composition to the choir for a coming TV special.

Most of those who won’t listen, won’t vote either, rendering their willful ignorance relatively benign. Stop worrying about them. All they will do is hate you, lie about you, wreck your business – childish stuff. We progress by clearly articulating to the extent possible. The same Bible which is the main reason we care about babies promises all the protection we need to finish what we are here to do.

It isn’t just saving baby bodies where we self censor. Adult souls are lost. We hold back sharing what we know about God. Snap out of it.

Statement of Facts #3 of 12: The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS

From Roe (1973) through Dobbs (2022), SCOTUS evaded that core issue.1

SCOTUS never ruled babies Non-Persons “as a Matter of Law”, as lower courts allege.2 Roe made that fact not only relevant, but dispositive with a holding which no court has disputed even though Roe’s main holding was overturned:3

“[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 [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state]. The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded as much....”4

Dobbs explicitly left this statement of the obvious untouched, saying “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”5 Dobbs did not say babies aren’t people. Dobbs did not say voters should still decide whether babies can be murdered in the face of proof that babies are in fact people.6 Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that “establishment” of this fact, independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment,7 dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime.8

This established fact is as relevant today as when Roe said “of course” it is.

This established fact is not disestablished by any judge’s alleged inability to understand it.9

This established FACT is not made irrelevant by any judge’s theory that the legal right of little humans to live is “impossible” to determine so it should be decided by their value to big humans.10

If only those legally recognized as “persons” were people, slavery could still be legal and the 14th Amendment would mean nothing. Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human.11 The Amendment protects those who are IN FACT people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people “as a matter of law”.12

Footnotes: see Statement 3 + Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Part 2: The Power of Personhood

Statement of Facts #4 of 12: 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.1 Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that a person has begun to live.2

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: American College of Pediatricians <> Heartbeat International <> World Faith Foundation and Institute for Faith and Family <> National Catholic Bioethics Center, et al <> Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> Jewish Prolife Foundation <> American Association of Prolife Obstretricians

Footnotes: see Statement 4 + Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Statement of Facts #5 of 12: Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders

But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of a supposedly 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.1

The “Mistake of Fact” that is the premise of letting voters decide whether to continue judge-approved genocide according to the “value” they place on little people is that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant. That premise was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.2

That is an “erroneous factual premise”. The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable3 nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive.4 The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that interpretation of Dobbs’ holding, 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.5

Mini-lexicon of legal terms

Mistake of Fact: A statement of facts upon which a ruling was based, which is later shown to be untrue. It means the same as “erroneous factual premise”.

Stare Decisis: Hesitancy about reversing previous precedents. Precedents should only be reversed for very good reasons, because they affect how millions live, so the more law changes back and forth, the more that unsettles society.

Dispositive: Evidence so overwhelming that it is final. It settles a matter, with no need of further evidence. As in Matthew 26:65 “What further need have we of witnesses?” Holding: The part of a ruling that demands obedience, or that is a conclusion that is the basis for the ruling.

Overruled: Means the same as “overturned”, “repealed”, or “vacated”. It is where a court changes its mind, deciding that a previous precedent was “wrongly decided” or “incorrect”. Often it also means the previous ruling was unconstitutional, although nobody is allowed to use that word out loud.

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Illinois Right to Life <> Center for Religious Expression <> Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown

Footnotes: see Statement 5 + Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Statement of Facts #6 of 12: The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for many to grasp. But what distinguishes us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known pre-conscious stage

Part of the definition of “person” is “infused with a soul”, Roe v. Wade1 and dictionaries say.2 SCOTUS has not disagreed. “Consciousness” is another word for what has no physical explanation, and that distinguishes us from animals.

Animal behavior is predictable within breeds, indicating little “choice”. They are not like people who can choose to behave like angels or demons. Nothing physical can explain our ability to choose against our own bodies: to sacrifice our own interests for others, which is how John 15:13 defines “love”;3 or to destroy ourselves in hate.4

Roe v Wade was not out of line to consult “those trained in... theology” who study souls, as well as doctors who study bodies, to clarify who to count as human with an unalienable right to life.5

The extent of human choice is said by Psalm 22:10 to enable an unborn baby to place his trust in God. Luke 1:44 similarly reports that a baby at 6 months heard a righteous voice [and/or felt the righteous Presence of God] and responded with joy,6 a response not everybody chooses, indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth. To human consciousness, we give greater legal protection than to animals.7 Because nothing physical explains such powers, undeveloped bodies don’t establish undeveloped consciousness.

Since a “soul” without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined,8 the consensus of fact finders is, in effect, that abortion kills babies with conscious souls.

All this testimony indicates that when a baby is killed by dismemberment, acid, or sucking out the brain, it is not some non-sentient animal, some pre-human “potential life”, but a self-aware conscious soul that feels the pain, understands the cruelty, and if out-of-body near-death experiences are real, sees, along with God, who is doing it. Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”, or between “meaningful life” and life which courts are free to terminate.9 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.10

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

   28/430 words

Mini-lexicon of legal terms:

SCOTUS: Supreme Court Of The United States

Stage of Gestation: Any time during the development of a baby in the womb. This isn’t exactly a legal term, but it is not common outside courts.

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Foundation for Moral Law, Lutherans for Life <> American College of Pedia-tricians <> Jewish Prolife Foundation <> Dr. Robin Pierucci, M.D.

See footnotes at: Statement_6_+_Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Part 3: Myth Busters

Statement of Facts #7 of 12: Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion, without allowing Congress to legalize it

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).1

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.…”2 A law misaligned with facts does not block future lawmakers from making corrections, and states don’t need Congress’ “permission” to obey the 14th Amendment.

The reason 18 U.S.C. 1841(d) has had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in its authority to establish dispositive facts, but because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited it to establish what Roe correctly 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.3 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 pulls not only courts, but society, closer to reality.4 32/254 words

Mini-Lexicon of legal terms:

Personhood Law: A law stating that an unborn baby is a person. A human being. A“human person”, as Dobbs v. Jackson stated. That is, a person with all the legal rights of any other human.

“In Utero”: In the womb. An unborn baby is in the womb - “in utero”.

“Homo Sapiens”: humans. “The species homo sapiens”: the human race.

Dispositive: Proved. Evidence so strong that no more is needed.

Cited: Quoted. Referred to it.

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and from Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College <> Judge Bork

See footnotes at: Statement_7_+_Footnotes

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Statement #8 of 12: Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”

Neither Roe nor Dobbs distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”. [2] Nor does the 14th Amendment leave any human unprotected.

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 [“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.’” 410 U.S. 113, 133(1973)

Dobbs cites the belief that “a human person comes into being at conception” without distinguishing between the two words. [3]

The word “person” in the 14th Amendment meant “An individual human being...man, woman, or child...consisting of body and soul.” The word “child” in that 1828 definition included unborn children, since to be “with child” meant to be pregnant. [4]

Therefore the Amendment’s “nor shall any state deprive any person of life” and “equal protection” of every “person” means every human, including those unborn. Nothing about the first clause keeps later clauses from protecting unborn humans. [5]

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”. [6]

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”.

Although Dobbs showed by disproving the opposite that reverence for all human life from fertilization was “deeply rooted in America’s law and traditions”, that is not why rights merit 14th Amendment protection. By the “deeply rooted” test, slavery would be legal today, since freedom for slaves had zero historical support.

Nor does it matter if the Amendment authors even wanted to protect all humans. In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as developed by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.

There is a direct test of whether babies merit 14th Amendment protection that does not require a romp through history: [7] see if their parents are humans.

“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) [8]

FOOTNOTES: see Statement_8_+_Footnotes

Mini-lexicon of legal terms:

14th Amendment: Ratified in 1868, the third year after the Civil War ended, it ruled that every state must give everyone under its laws the “equal protection” of its laws. It gave Congress authority to “enforce” the rights listed in the Constitution when state legislatures can’t or won’t, and to block state laws that protect some people less. Starting five years later, the Supreme Court usurped that authority of Congress for itself, and instead of protecting rights listed in the Constitution it made up rights not in the Constitution that are hostile to constitutional rights. More about that later.

Equal Protection Clause: The clause in the 14th Amendment that requires states to give “equal protection of the laws” to all its citizens.

The footnotes are enriched by selections from the Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Lee J. Strang <> Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George <> Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children <> Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and by selections from the 1996 debate between Judge Robert Bork and Professor Nathan Schluetter

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.'

Statement of Facts #9 of 12: When pregnancies develop into medical emergencies requiring separation of mother and child to save the mother, the child has an equally fundamental right to life and medical care.

A legislature’s balancing of their interests cannot, therefore, be reviewed by “strict scrutiny”.2 Nor does alleged insufficiency of a “medical emergency” exception from a general abortion ban justify a court overturning the ban in the 99% of cases where no emergency is alleged.3 Legislatures are better equipped to deliberate about and secure the rights of all citizens than courts whose focus is the parties before them.4

SCOTUS never denied that a legislature’s “personhood” statements in an abortion ban are strong evidence.5 That evidence is not mitigated by a ban’s exceptions.6 It is not made irrelevant because baby killers “rely” on killing babies.7 28/130 words

Mini-Lexicon of legal terms: Fundamental Right: This is a term not found in the Constitution but made up by SCOTUS for the rights SCOTUS makes up which often displace rights actually listed in the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas is eloquent on this point. More about this later.

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: A Foundation for Moral Law <> Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation <> 396 State Legislators from 41 States

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Statement of Facts #10 of 12: Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, and by the Declaration, which gives the purpose of the Constitution and rests its own authority on the revelation of God1 in the Bible

Roe v Wade was not out of line to consult “those trained in... theology” who study souls, as well as doctors who study bodies, to clarify who to count as human with an unalienable right to life.3

America’s Freedom springs from “all men are created equal” and “equal protection of the laws” for all humans even if their looks, language, wealth, strength, ancestry, power, or faith are different.4 These rights have proven such a blessing to the world that their source, the Bible, deserves the fair hearing owed any witness whose reliability has been confirmed, when it promises still greater blessings if we will equally protect humans whose physical size is different.5

Its testimony is not “cumulative”, but “probative”.6 It is not to be feared as dispositive or compulsory: American freedom balances human understanding of how best to apply Biblical principles to government against the willingness of voting majorities to follow those principles. Even that is a Biblical principle legitimized in 1 Samuel 8.7

The history of slavery, Prohibition, and abortion illustrate the “willingness” factor. The probative value of the testimony of God is proved by the fact that without it, slavery would never have ended, and the prolife movement would never have begun. Which makes it probative to observe that not only the 14th Amendment, but also the revelation of God, requires this state, as it does every state, to outlaw all trampling of fundamental rights of any class of people, including abortion of babies.8 Where the two authorities say the same thing, the Bible, for all its alleged ambiguity, is better understood and more trusted than the Constitution which has indeed proven “a thing of wax” in the nimble fingers of even the most scrupulous judges.9

Without God – without belief in a more objective standard of right and wrong than the “value” that voters place on “different” people through “evolving community standards”, it is impossible to understand fundamental rights.10

Courts have demonstrated this impossibility by so often confusing abominations for rights, decimating those whom Jesus said “forbid them not to come unto Me”, denying that He created them, murdering 17% of them, sodomizing 20% of the survivors, and censoring 100% of His teachings in schools.11

That destruction of the 14th Amendment (1868) began when “Substantive Due Process”, pioneered in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was applied in United States v. Cruikshank 92 U. S. 542 (1876) to acquit a white Democrat mililtia of murdering “as many as 165” black Republicans and burning down the courthouse they were defending.12

Uncensoring God does not “establish religion”. It does not compel belief, action or endorsement. It simply allows judges and voters to make informed decisions. It is part of fact-finding. It is part of reasoning. Part of embracing reality. Part of examining “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Judges must stop punishing people for telling the truth just because the truth favors God.13

Uncensoring the Bible does not require equal weight for claims of religions that deny equal rights for all.14

For example, some claim “souls” don’t enter babies until long after fertilization, or even long after birth.15 Their claims do not “cancel” the mountain of consensus of court-recognized fact finders that souls are present from the beginning. Our Constitution and laws reject their unequal rights, and are appropriately wary of their rationales for their unequal rights. The credibility of every witness is not equal. Credibility is earned. There can be “free exercise” of religions hostile to “equal protection of the laws” only to the extent their “exercise” does not threaten the rights of others or violate the laws enacted to protect them – laws ultimately decided by voting majorities, hopefully well informed through the uncensoring of reality.16 39/520 words

Mini-Lexicon of legal terms:

Cumulative: testimony so redundant that it wastes the court’s time Dispositive: testimony so strong that it settles the issue with no more Probative: probative facts establish, or contribute to, proof. Probative value is the degree of relevance of evidence.

Prohibition: From 1920 to 1932, drinking (alcohol) was made illegal, banned by an actual Constitutional Amendment. Actual alcohol consumption dropped by about 50%, or at least that is how much Cirrhosis of the Liver cases dropped. During that time the drop in drinking led to an economic boom, called the “Roaring Twenties”, which unfortunately were not remembered for their prosperity but for their immorality. In 1928, the prosperity collapsed into a “Great Depression” due to cheating by stock market investors. In 1932 Americans wanted liquor so bad they ratified another Constitutional Amendment repealing the 1920 Amendment.

Substantive Due Process: As Justice Clarence Thomas eloquently explains – see Statement #11 footnotes, this phrase was made up by SCOTUS to justify making up what it calls “fundamental rights” as its tool of repealing laws it doesn’t like. It gets its name from the SCOTUS claim that the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment gives SCOTUS its authority to make up rights and call them “fundamental”. But “Due Process” only meant the legal procedures which everyone must be given equally, to defend their rights in court when necessary. The phrase has nothing to do with identifying what rights are protectable. But “Substantive” means those rights we care about, that the Constitution protects. Like freedom of speech or religion. Because “substantive” means substantial, serious rights, and “due process” has nothing to do with identifying any rights, the LONANG Institute observes in Statement #11 notes that “substantive due process” is an oxymoron.

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: Foundation for Moral Law and Lutherans for Life <> Jewish Prolife Foundation <> LONANG Institute <> U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations <> Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Part 4: Conclusions

Statement of Facts #11 of 12: The 14th Amendment gives federal courts no “due process” authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the “right” to murder, and gives Congress no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights, like taking a baby’s right to Life

The sole federal authority over state laws regarding the rights of their own citizens is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.1 Contrary to SCOTUS rulings, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides:

  • Congress authorized, not courts. Congress, not courts, determines the manner and scope of federal intervention in states whose laws don’t protect their citizens’ rights.2 Congress is not limited to enforcing only those rights of which SCOTUS approves, nor only to the extent that SCOTUS approves,3 nor only when state governments, not individuals, directly violate rights.4
  • Federal courts aren’t permitted to stop either states or Congress from protecting enumerated rights (like Life), or to repeal their laws for conflicting with unenumerated [not listed in the Constitution] “rights” (like the “right” to murder babies), or to intervene in states’ protection of rights beyond prosecuting violations of federal laws.5
  • Nor can Congress stop states from protecting enumerated rights. Neither Congress nor federal courts may overturn a state law protecting the lives of unborn babies from surgical abortion, chemical abortion, or contraceptives.6
  • The rights subject to federal enforcement are not those made up by SCOTUS allegedly based on the “Due Process” clause,7 but those listed in the Constitution, referred to as “privileges and immunities”8 (including, for unborn babies, the “privilege” of life and “immunity” from “cruel and unusual punishment” and execution “without due process of law”).9

* Enumerated Rights recognized before the Constitution existed are not excluded from Congressional intervention.10

  • “Substantive Due Process” is the sophistry by which SCOTUS turned the Constitution’s Authority to Define Rights, and Congress’ 14th Amendment Section 5 Authority to Enforce Rights, into its own authority to reclassify abominations as “rights”.11 It is an illegal, unconstitutional, Freedom-crushing fraud from Hell fomenting a long line of Landmark Abomination Cases.12

Mini-lexicon of legal terms:

Due Process: The duty of courts to give all parties to cases the fair and equal procedures and opportunities for defending themselves.

(This argument for ending SCOTUS’ long line of Landmark Abomination Cases continues in Part Two of this book where its focus on SCOTUS-mandated murder of babies created in the Image of God is extended to SCOTUS’ censorship of God Himself.)

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amici who filed briefs in Dobbs v. Jackson: Lonang Institute <> Christian Legal Society <> AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, Roman Catholic and Protestant Religious and Civil Rights Organizations <> Senators Josh Hawley, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz. And from Judge Robert Bork <> Nathan Schlueter, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Hillsdale College, (when he debated Judge Bork in 2003 he was assistant professor of pre-law and political science at St. Ambrose University. Author, “Unborn Persons and the Fourteenth Amendment.” 2002.) <> Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law School <> Legal Information Institute, Cornell University <> Justice Clarence Thomas, dissents and concurrences <> justia.com <> James Gray Pope, Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law <> Libby Adler professor of law and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies, Northeastern University Christmas, 2023

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Statement #12 of 12:Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable. The authority to impeach subsumes the authority to codify more surgical correctives.

Any judge interfering with this state’s compliance with the 14th Amendment and its ancient authority to protect its people1 – the central reason governments exist, is an accessory to genocide according to the uncontradicted consensus of court-recognized fact finders,2 and is guilty of exercising the legislative function, in order to perpetuate genocide through an unconstitutional ruling,3 which exceeds the judicial powers given by any Constitution, which is Malfeasance in Office, a ground of impeachment.4

The authority to impeach subsumes the authority to codify more surgical correctives, including (1) giving the state Supreme Court original jurisdiction over any challenge to a law, (2) requiring that review be expedited, (3) requiring a supermajority of the Court to suspend a law, (4) questioning justices in a public hearing about the constitutionality of their ruling, and (5) overturning the ruling with a supermajority of the legislature.5

Should any federal judge so interfere with this state’s constitutional duty, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action,6 along with exercising its Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 authority to make “exceptions” and “regulations” designed to end SCOTUS’ long line of landmark abomination cases.

This state also appeals to its congressional delegation to exercise its life-saving and rights-protecting authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment whose plain words give Congress, not courts, the authority to correct state violations of Rights,7 which subsumes the authority to define their scope and to balance competing interests, while the “privileges and immunities” clause identifies as protectable rights those listed in the Constitution.8

Official world-wide definitions of “crimes against humanity” apply “to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission”, whether elected representatives or unelected judges.”9

Any court review of this law must be expedited, because lives are lost with each day that courts delay.10 7/230 words

Mini-Lexicon of Legal terms:

Malfeasance in office: official misconduct; violation of a public trust or obligation; specifically, the doing of an act which is positively unlawful or wrongful.

Subsumes: Includes. To include or place within something larger or more comprehensive: encompass as a subordinate or component element red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term "color"

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: 396 State Legislators from 41 States <> Melinda Thybault/Moral Outcry <> and by Matthew J. Franck, Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute and visiting lecturer in politics at Princeton University

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Fact finders agree babies are people. No state can legalize people killing.
Statement_2_+_Footnotes “Fact finders” persuade courts for the same reason they persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never denied that Babies are fully human or ruled that irrelevant.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures must “regulate” abortion – the way they do other murders!
Statement_6_+_Footnotes What makes us human isn’t physical, so physical size isn’t its measure.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress already passed a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes SCOTUS never said there are humans who aren't people.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes Babies separated from moms to save moms have an equal right to live.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any people group violates the Constitution, and the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives Congress no authority to block state protection of rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Retrieved from "http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/index.php?title=Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases&oldid=50386"