Revision as of 15:22, 16 November 2023

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

Statement of Facts #5 from:

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

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) 18:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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 #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. ^[1]

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]

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

INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Courtrecognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human
Statement_2_+_Footnotes Courts Accept the Fact-Finding Authority of Legislatures, Juries, Experts for the same good reasons their findings persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders.
Statement_6_+_Footnotes 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.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes 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_8_+_Footnotes Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes When pregnancies develop into medical emergencies requiring separation of mother and child to save the mother, the child has an equal fundamental right to life and medical care.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, by 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 legislatures no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

FOOTNOTES

↑
More about “...the child has an equally fundamental right to life and medical care [as the child’s mother].
     This footnote assumes that the prolife law incorporating this Finding of Fact contains 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, which has been a legal argument for blocking any abortion restriction raised in Iowa, North Dakota, and Idaho, that I know about, and probably several other places. (www.savetheworld.saltshaker. us/wiki/ND_Court_Gives_Moms_Fundamental_Right_to_Save_Themselves_from_their_Babies)
     Here is an example of a clear exception:
“The duty of a doctor is to save the life and health of both mother and child if possible. Separation of mother and child is justified when that will reduce danger to the mother. That will still give the child a chance to live who is old enough. A child not old enough will be at little greater risk of death outside the mother, while receiving responsible medical care, than inside a mother at risk of dying. A child separated to reduce danger to the child’s mother has a fundamental right to the same care as any other prematurely delivered baby.”

     Not that confusion among doctors about how to save both mother and baby, without clear legal language, is significant, argues the Amicus Brief of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation filed in Dobbs v. Jackson:
     In modern obstetrical practice, the physician treats two patients—the mother and her unborn baby—and strives to maximize and protect the health and well-being of both. Good medical practice requires this. It is rare that the interests of one of these patients, from a medical standpoint, conflicts with the other. Even in those instances where the mother’s condition may place her physical health at greater risk, the pregnancy can generally be managed satisfactorily with a successful outcome for both the mother and baby. In those very rare circumstances when this cannot be done, laws like Mississippi’s allow pregnancy terminations to take place in order to protect the mother.

     ….1. Basic medical texts, for decades, have made it clear that there are two patients that must be cared for in modern obstetrical practice. For example, in explaining the need for significant revisions to the 1980 edition of Williams Obstetrics, the authors stated: “Happily, we have entered an era in which the fetus can be rightfully considered and treated as our second patient. . . Fetal diagnosis and therapy have now emerged as legitimate tools the obstetrician must possess. Moreover, the number of tools the obstetrician can employ to address the needs of the fetus increases each year.” Jack A. Pritchard & Paul C. MacDonald, Williams Obstetrics, vii (16th Ed. 1980) (emphasis supplied).
     A later edition made it even more obvious that obstetricians must be cognizant of the unborn baby as a separate entity when managing a pregnancy. It stated: Obstetrics is an unusual specialty of medicine. Practitioners of this art and science must be concerned simultaneously with the lives and well-being of two persons; indeed, the lives of two who are interwoven. F. Gary Cunningham, et al., Williams Obstetrics, vii (18th ed. 1989). In a chapter entitled “Techniques to Evaluate Fetal Health,” it was stated:
     “Until relatively recently, the intrauterine sanctuary of the fetus was held to be inviolate. The mother was the patient to be cared for; the fetus was but another albeit transient, maternal organ. . . Indeed, the fetus is no longer regarded as a maternal appendage. . . . Instead, the fetus has achieved the status of the second patient, a patient who usually faces much greater risks of serious morbidity and mortality than does the mother.”
The many advances in diagnosis and treatment that now clearly establish the fetus as a patient have also contributed remarkably to legal considerations involving the fetus. Fetal legal rights are emerging; for example, in some courts, the fetus has been allowed to file suit. Id at 277.
     Obstetric ultrasound technology was in its infancy at the time of Roe, and was not widely used in the United States until well into the 1970’s. Malcolm Nicolson & John E.E. Fleming, Imaging and Imagining the Fetus 233 (2013). It has since given rise to whole new fields of medicine and top pediatric hospitals across the country regularly perform surgery on this second patient.2
     Abortion proponents disregard these basic facts when they ignore the existence of the second patient within the womb and suggest that unborn children are just appendages of the mother to be discarded upon her request. In so doing, they suggest a return to an outmoded and discredited approach to pregnancy and obstetrical practice.

     2. It is rare that the interests of one of these patients, from a medical standpoint, conflicts with the other. And, on those rare occasions when it does, the pregnancy can generally be successfully managed. So, medically speaking, abortion is almost never needed to manage a pregnancy. Honest abortion proponents long ago admitted to the overall safety of pregnancy and the lack of a need for abortion for medical reasons.
↑ More about “A legislature’s balancing of their interests cannot, therefore, be reviewed by ‘strict scrutiny’.”
     For an example of what “strict scrutiny” can do to a law limiting abortion to save moms from pregnancies that are developing into “medical emergencies”, see http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ND_Court_Gives_ Moms_Fundamental_Right_to_Save_Themselves_from_their_Babies
     From that article:
The court held (concluded, ruled): “there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny.”

     Translation: the North Dakota Supreme Court said moms have a fundamental right to live and their lives are threatened when their pregnancy develops into a “medical emergency”, so any restriction on abortions to save them must be reviewed by “strict scrutiny”. That is, the restriction has to be the least restriction possible of their “fundamental right”, and it must effectively serve a “compelling government interest”.
     The fundamental right of those babies to live is never mentioned, was therefore not weighed in the balance with mothers’ rights to live, and apparently was never brought up by the legislature, if we may trust the Court’s report of the legislature’s defense.
     Background: The North Dakota Supreme Court on March 16, 2023 shot down a “trigger law” (passed in 2007, whose outlawing of abortion was set to be “triggered” by SCOTUS’ repeal of Roe) because doctors worried that they could not kill babies to save their mothers without uncertain consequences in court. Legislatures always have a moral responsibility to minimize legal uncertainties, (with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”, Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983) But courts also have a moral responsibility to not add to any unavoidable uncertainties. (Laws should not be applied or interpreted in a way that produces an “absurd result” when a rational alternative is possible. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493 (1939)
     The North Dakota court confused matters by reviewing the law by Strict Scrutiny, (a restriction of a fundamental right must be the least restriction possible that is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest), by calling the safety of mothers a fundamental right while ignoring the fundamental right of babies to life. See the North Dakota ruling at https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ North-Dakota-Supreme-Court-Order-PI.pdf See highlights of the ruling with my analysis at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ND_Court_Gives_Moms_Fundamental_ Right_to_Save_Themselves_from_their_Babies
     In Iowa, an amicus brief of “Non-Iowa Abortion Care Providers” submitted in the review of an injunction against Iowa’s 2018 Heartbeat Law made the same argument, and added testimonies of doctors in neighboring states with similarly allegedly vague “life of the mother” exceptions. They moaned about leaving their patients with developing emergencies to go out into the hall to call lawyers to see if they could save their patients without going to jail. See the brief at www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18325/briefs/ 5800/embedBrief Because these testimonies were submitted in an amicus rather than a trial court, they could not be cross examined to establish whether their cases were true “life of the mother” situations, not to mention whether their medical credentials qualify them to provide better emergency care than just abortion, and whether their medical records are without scandal and fraud.
     When the Iowa Supreme Court for the ?th time killed Iowa’s Heartbeat Law June 16, 2023, (with a tie vote that left the district court ruling standing) the “life of the mother” exception was not mentioned. But neither was the fact mentioned that babies of people are people with a constitutionally “protected” right to live. In any Court of Law or of Public Opinion, for as long as the fundamental right of babies to live is thought not worth establishing, the fundamental right of mothers to live will outweigh any “state interest in preserving life”. There will be no balance, no equal right of both to live.
     If the Court ever reaches the merits of a law saving the lives of babies, it will be the prayer of babies that Iowa lawmakers will make it about, not some ephemeral “state interest”, but about babies’ God-given, “unalienable” right to live.
↑
More about “...insufficiency of a ‘medical emergency’ exception from a general abortion ban [doesn’t] justify a court overturning the ban in the 99% of cases where no emergency is alleged.”
     From the same article as Footnote #1 quoted:

     The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled March 16, 2023 that mothers have a “fundamental right” to “abort” their babies to save their own lives, so therefore the state law outlawing all abortions needs to be put on hold until a clearer “life of the mother” exception can be added. Not added by the legislature, but added by the lower court, which the supreme court commissioned to work out the details.

     The ruling makes zero mention of the fact that babies are people/humans. So what does that leave for a basis for babies' right to live?
     Oh, wait, it doesn't talk about babies' right to live either. Corrected question: So what does that leave for a basis for moms' fundamental right to murder their babies? Why, if they've been murdering babies from half a century ago to a century and a half ago and farther back in time, in other words if baby murder is "well rooted in our history", then it's a fundamental right. That is THE TEST for whether something we get to do is a "fundamental right".
     Never mind that by that test, we have a Fundamental Right to discriminate against free blacks, keep women from voting, work children 20 hours a day in dangerous mines and factories, and sell homemade "medicine" loaded with cocaine in traveling minstrel shows. Owning slaves is likewise "well rooted in our history".
     Fortunately the ND Supreme Court isn't planning to overturn ALL of ND's abortion ban PERMANENTLY. Yet. Just for another few years while courts mess with it. Their discussion focuses on just the ban on abortions when a mother will likely die without one. That distinction - abortions allowed only to "save the life of the mother" - is clear in ND's history which shows that from ND's beginning, abortions were legal to save the life of the mother, while all other abortions were outlawed. But of the Supreme Court's many mentions of the fundamental right to an abortion, that caveat is omitted, and the Court is returning the issue to the lower court to hammer out details like that.
     A huge opportunity for the devil is in the details about a woman's "health". We remember how "Doe v. Bolton" expanded the word to cover anything from a toothache to toenail rot. The law put on hold by this ruling has an exception for the life of the mother, which this Court said is too legally complicated, but this ruling adds protection of "health" to what it deems as a "fundamental right", without defining "health", and then tells the lower court to go ahead and figure it out. Never mind that abortion generally is no "fundamental right" according to Dobbs, surely the lower court will drive through the supreme court's green light as fast as it pleases.
     This would be a really great time for ND prolife lawmakers to introduce a bill that includes the consensus of court-recognized fact finders that babies are people - unborn babies are legally recognizable as fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which no state can legalize.
     This won't necessarily protect babies whose existence threatens their mothers' lives, because as the Court observes, self defense laws give us the right even to kill other people who are trying to kill us. (Although the Concurrence that made this point overlooked the fact that self defense laws give us that right when others are deliberately trying to kill or seriously injure us, not when the very existence of someone else who simply wants our love is what is threatening us.)

     In any case a "life of the mother" exception is legally, morally, and so far as I can tell Biblically complicated and may or may not be affected by the unanimous finding of fact that babies are "human persons", as Dobbs called them. But that evidence is desperately needed in court to save babies whose existence does NOT threaten their mothers.
```
  
```
↑
↑
↑
↑

[1] More about “...the child has an equally fundamental right to life and medical care [as the child’s mother].
This footnote assumes that the prolife law incorporating this Finding of Fact contains 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, which has been a legal argument for blocking any abortion restriction raised in Iowa, North Dakota, and Idaho, that I know about, and probably several other places. (www.savetheworld.saltshaker. us/wiki/ND_Court_Gives_Moms_Fundamental_Right_to_Save_Themselves_from_their_Babies)
Here is an example of a clear exception:
“The duty of a doctor is to save the life and health of both mother and child if possible. Separation of mother and child is justified when that will reduce danger to the mother. That will still give the child a chance to live who is old enough. A child not old enough will be at little greater risk of death outside the mother, while receiving responsible medical care, than inside a mother at risk of dying. A child separated to reduce danger to the child’s mother has a fundamental right to the same care as any other prematurely delivered baby.”

Not that confusion among doctors about how to save both mother and baby, without clear legal language, is significant, argues the Amicus Brief of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation filed in Dobbs v. Jackson:

In modern obstetrical practice, the physician treats two patients—the mother and her unborn baby—and strives to maximize and protect the health and well-being of both. Good medical practice requires this. It is rare that the interests of one of these patients, from a medical standpoint, conflicts with the other. Even in those instances where the mother’s condition may place her physical health at greater risk, the pregnancy can generally be managed satisfactorily with a successful outcome for both the mother and baby. In those very rare circumstances when this cannot be done, laws like Mississippi’s allow pregnancy terminations to take place in order to protect the mother.

….1. Basic medical texts, for decades, have made it clear that there are two patients that must be cared for in modern obstetrical practice. For example, in explaining the need for significant revisions to the 1980 edition of Williams Obstetrics, the authors stated: “Happily, we have entered an era in which the fetus can be rightfully considered and treated as our second patient. . . Fetal diagnosis and therapy have now emerged as legitimate tools the obstetrician must possess. Moreover, the number of tools the obstetrician can employ to address the needs of the fetus increases each year.” Jack A. Pritchard & Paul C. MacDonald, Williams Obstetrics, vii (16th Ed. 1980) (emphasis supplied).
A later edition made it even more obvious that obstetricians must be cognizant of the unborn baby as a separate entity when managing a pregnancy. It stated: Obstetrics is an unusual specialty of medicine. Practitioners of this art and science must be concerned simultaneously with the lives and well-being of two persons; indeed, the lives of two who are interwoven. F. Gary Cunningham, et al., Williams Obstetrics, vii (18th ed. 1989). In a chapter entitled “Techniques to Evaluate Fetal Health,” it was stated:
“Until relatively recently, the intrauterine sanctuary of the fetus was held to be inviolate. The mother was the patient to be cared for; the fetus was but another albeit transient, maternal organ. . . Indeed, the fetus is no longer regarded as a maternal appendage. . . . Instead, the fetus has achieved the status of the second patient, a patient who usually faces much greater risks of serious morbidity and mortality than does the mother.”

The many advances in diagnosis and treatment that now clearly establish the fetus as a patient have also contributed remarkably to legal considerations involving the fetus. Fetal legal rights are emerging; for example, in some courts, the fetus has been allowed to file suit. Id at 277.
Obstetric ultrasound technology was in its infancy at the time of Roe, and was not widely used in the United States until well into the 1970’s. Malcolm Nicolson & John E.E. Fleming, Imaging and Imagining the Fetus 233 (2013). It has since given rise to whole new fields of medicine and top pediatric hospitals across the country regularly perform surgery on this second patient.2
Abortion proponents disregard these basic facts when they ignore the existence of the second patient within the womb and suggest that unborn children are just appendages of the mother to be discarded upon her request. In so doing, they suggest a return to an outmoded and discredited approach to pregnancy and obstetrical practice.

2. It is rare that the interests of one of these patients, from a medical standpoint, conflicts with the other. And, on those rare occasions when it does, the pregnancy can generally be successfully managed. So, medically speaking, abortion is almost never needed to manage a pregnancy. Honest abortion proponents long ago admitted to the overall safety of pregnancy and the lack of a need for abortion for medical reasons.

[2] More about “A legislature’s balancing of their interests cannot, therefore, be reviewed by ‘strict scrutiny’.”
For an example of what “strict scrutiny” can do to a law limiting abortion to save moms from pregnancies that are developing into “medical emergencies”, see http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ND_Court_Gives_ Moms_Fundamental_Right_to_Save_Themselves_from_their_Babies
From that article:
The court held (concluded, ruled): “there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny.”

Translation: the North Dakota Supreme Court said moms have a fundamental right to live and their lives are threatened when their pregnancy develops into a “medical emergency”, so any restriction on abortions to save them must be reviewed by “strict scrutiny”. That is, the restriction has to be the least restriction possible of their “fundamental right”, and it must effectively serve a “compelling government interest”.
The fundamental right of those babies to live is never mentioned, was therefore not weighed in the balance with mothers’ rights to live, and apparently was never brought up by the legislature, if we may trust the Court’s report of the legislature’s defense.
Background: The North Dakota Supreme Court on March 16, 2023 shot down a “trigger law” (passed in 2007, whose outlawing of abortion was set to be “triggered” by SCOTUS’ repeal of Roe) because doctors worried that they could not kill babies to save their mothers without uncertain consequences in court. Legislatures always have a moral responsibility to minimize legal uncertainties, (with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”, Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983) But courts also have a moral responsibility to not add to any unavoidable uncertainties. (Laws should not be applied or interpreted in a way that produces an “absurd result” when a rational alternative is possible. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493 (1939)
The North Dakota court confused matters by reviewing the law by Strict Scrutiny, (a restriction of a fundamental right must be the least restriction possible that is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest), by calling the safety of mothers a fundamental right while ignoring the fundamental right of babies to life. See the North Dakota ruling at https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ North-Dakota-Supreme-Court-Order-PI.pdf See highlights of the ruling with my analysis at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ND_Court_Gives_Moms_Fundamental_ Right_to_Save_Themselves_from_their_Babies
In Iowa, an amicus brief of “Non-Iowa Abortion Care Providers” submitted in the review of an injunction against Iowa’s 2018 Heartbeat Law made the same argument, and added testimonies of doctors in neighboring states with similarly allegedly vague “life of the mother” exceptions. They moaned about leaving their patients with developing emergencies to go out into the hall to call lawyers to see if they could save their patients without going to jail. See the brief at www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18325/briefs/ 5800/embedBrief Because these testimonies were submitted in an amicus rather than a trial court, they could not be cross examined to establish whether their cases were true “life of the mother” situations, not to mention whether their medical credentials qualify them to provide better emergency care than just abortion, and whether their medical records are without scandal and fraud.
When the Iowa Supreme Court for the ?th time killed Iowa’s Heartbeat Law June 16, 2023, (with a tie vote that left the district court ruling standing) the “life of the mother” exception was not mentioned. But neither was the fact mentioned that babies of people are people with a constitutionally “protected” right to live. In any Court of Law or of Public Opinion, for as long as the fundamental right of babies to live is thought not worth establishing, the fundamental right of mothers to live will outweigh any “state interest in preserving life”. There will be no balance, no equal right of both to live.
If the Court ever reaches the merits of a law saving the lives of babies, it will be the prayer of babies that Iowa lawmakers will make it about, not some ephemeral “state interest”, but about babies’ God-given, “unalienable” right to live.

[3] More about “...insufficiency of a ‘medical emergency’ exception from a general abortion ban [doesn’t] justify a court overturning the ban in the 99% of cases where no emergency is alleged.”
From the same article as Footnote #1 quoted:

The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled March 16, 2023 that mothers have a “fundamental right” to “abort” their babies to save their own lives, so therefore the state law outlawing all abortions needs to be put on hold until a clearer “life of the mother” exception can be added. Not added by the legislature, but added by the lower court, which the supreme court commissioned to work out the details.

The ruling makes zero mention of the fact that babies are people/humans. So what does that leave for a basis for babies' right to live?
Oh, wait, it doesn't talk about babies' right to live either. Corrected question: So what does that leave for a basis for moms' fundamental right to murder their babies? Why, if they've been murdering babies from half a century ago to a century and a half ago and farther back in time, in other words if baby murder is "well rooted in our history", then it's a fundamental right. That is THE TEST for whether something we get to do is a "fundamental right".
Never mind that by that test, we have a Fundamental Right to discriminate against free blacks, keep women from voting, work children 20 hours a day in dangerous mines and factories, and sell homemade "medicine" loaded with cocaine in traveling minstrel shows. Owning slaves is likewise "well rooted in our history".
Fortunately the ND Supreme Court isn't planning to overturn ALL of ND's abortion ban PERMANENTLY. Yet. Just for another few years while courts mess with it. Their discussion focuses on just the ban on abortions when a mother will likely die without one. That distinction - abortions allowed only to "save the life of the mother" - is clear in ND's history which shows that from ND's beginning, abortions were legal to save the life of the mother, while all other abortions were outlawed. But of the Supreme Court's many mentions of the fundamental right to an abortion, that caveat is omitted, and the Court is returning the issue to the lower court to hammer out details like that.
A huge opportunity for the devil is in the details about a woman's "health". We remember how "Doe v. Bolton" expanded the word to cover anything from a toothache to toenail rot. The law put on hold by this ruling has an exception for the life of the mother, which this Court said is too legally complicated, but this ruling adds protection of "health" to what it deems as a "fundamental right", without defining "health", and then tells the lower court to go ahead and figure it out. Never mind that abortion generally is no "fundamental right" according to Dobbs, surely the lower court will drive through the supreme court's green light as fast as it pleases.
This would be a really great time for ND prolife lawmakers to introduce a bill that includes the consensus of court-recognized fact finders that babies are people - unborn babies are legally recognizable as fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which no state can legalize.
This won't necessarily protect babies whose existence threatens their mothers' lives, because as the Court observes, self defense laws give us the right even to kill other people who are trying to kill us. (Although the Concurrence that made this point overlooked the fact that self defense laws give us that right when others are deliberately trying to kill or seriously injure us, not when the very existence of someone else who simply wants our love is what is threatening us.)

In any case a "life of the mother" exception is legally, morally, and so far as I can tell Biblically complicated and may or may not be affected by the unanimous finding of fact that babies are "human persons", as Dobbs called them. But that evidence is desperately needed in court to save babies whose existence does NOT threaten their mothers.

[4] ↑

[5] ↑

[6] ↑

[7] ↑

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the Court ever reaches the merits of a law saving the lives of babies, it will be the prayer of babies that Iowa lawmakers will make it about, not some ephemeral “state interest”, but about babies’ God-given, “unalienable” right to live.     </ref>
 <span style="color:blue">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.
-<ref>   </ref>
+<ref>'''More about “...insufficiency of a ‘medical emergency’ exception from a general abortion ban [doesn’t] justify a court overturning the ban in the 99% of cases where no emergency is alleged.” '''
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;From the same article as Footnote #1 quoted:
+<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The North Dakota Supreme Court [https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/North-Dakota-Supreme-Court-Order-PI.pdf ruled March 16, 2023] that mothers have a “fundamental right” to “abort” their babies to save their own lives, so therefore the state law outlawing all abortions needs to be put on hold until a clearer “life of the mother” exception can be added. Not added by the legislature, but added by the lower court, which the supreme court commissioned to work out the details.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ruling makes zero mention of the fact that babies are people/humans. So what does that leave for a basis for babies' right to live?
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, wait, it doesn't talk about babies' right to live either. Corrected question: So what does that leave for a basis for moms' fundamental right to murder their babies?
+Why, if they've been murdering babies from half a century ago to a century and a half ago and farther back in time, in other words if baby murder is "well rooted in our history", then it's a fundamental right. That is THE TEST for whether something we get to do is a "fundamental right".
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Never mind that by that test, we have a Fundamental Right to discriminate against free blacks, keep women from voting, work children 20 hours a day in dangerous mines and factories, and sell homemade "medicine" loaded with cocaine in traveling minstrel shows. Owning slaves is likewise "well rooted in our history".
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Fortunately the ND Supreme Court isn't planning to overturn ALL of ND's abortion ban PERMANENTLY. Yet. Just for another few years while courts mess with it. Their discussion focuses on just the ban on abortions when a mother will likely die without one. That distinction - abortions allowed only to "save the life of the mother" - is clear in ND's history which shows that from ND's beginning, abortions were legal to save the life of the mother, while all other abortions were outlawed. But of the Supreme Court's many mentions of the fundamental right to an abortion, that caveat is omitted, and the Court is returning the issue to the lower court to hammer out details like that.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A huge opportunity for the devil is in the details about a woman's "health". We remember how "Doe v. Bolton" expanded the word to cover anything from a toothache to toenail rot. The law put on hold by this ruling has an exception for the life of the mother, which this Court said is too legally complicated, but this ruling adds protection of "health" to what it deems as a "fundamental right", without defining "health", and then tells the lower court to go ahead and figure it out. Never mind that abortion generally is no "fundamental right" according to Dobbs, surely the lower court will drive through the supreme court's green light as fast as it pleases.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This would be a really great time for ND prolife lawmakers to introduce a bill that includes the consensus of court-recognized fact finders that babies are people - unborn babies are legally recognizable as fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which no state can legalize.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This won't necessarily protect babies whose existence threatens their mothers' lives, because as the Court observes, self defense laws give us the right even to kill other people who are trying to kill us. (Although the Concurrence that made this point overlooked the fact that self defense laws give us that right when others are deliberately trying to kill or seriously injure us, not when the very existence of someone else who simply wants our love is what is threatening us.)
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In any case a "life of the mother" exception is legally, morally, and so far as I can tell Biblically complicated and may or may not be affected by the unanimous finding of fact that babies are "human persons", as Dobbs called them. But that evidence is desperately needed in court to save babies whose existence does NOT threaten their mothers. </blockquote>
+   </ref>
 <span style="color:blue">Legislatures are better equipped to deliberate about and secure the rights of all citizens than courts whose focus is the parties before them.
 <ref>   </ref>

Difference between revisions of "Forum/Statement 9 + Footnotes"

Revision as of 15:22, 16 November 2023

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Statement of Fact #9 of 12:

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools