Revision as of 20:32, 17 October 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 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement of Facts #5: 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 unknowable ^[3] 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]

Official world-wide definitions of “crimes against humanity” apply “to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.” ^[6]

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 SCOTUS never denied that state personhood laws are strong evidence in an abortion case.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes “Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes 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.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

FOOTNOTES

↑ More about “a ‘mistake of fact’...is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.”
     Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, described Roe v. Wade as “precedent upon precedent”, yet when asked by a Democrat about a precedent that Democrats don’t like, (Citizens United), he explained that a “mistake of facts” is one of Stare Decisis’ official grounds for overturning precedents. (Stare Decisis means “Let the decision stand”. Precedents should be followed except when their errors are clear.) Here is an excerpt:
     Whitehouse: “The hypothetical problem that I have has to do with an appellate court which makes a finding of fact. Asserts a proposition of fact to be true. And upon that proposition hangs the decision that it reaches. The question is, what happens when that proposition of fact...turns out not to be true?” ...
     Kavanaugh: “[This is] wrapped up in a question of precedent and Stare Decisis. And one of the things you could look at, one of the factors you could look at, how wrong was the decision, and if it is based on an erroneous factual premise, that is clearly one of the factors... Mistakes of history. Sometimes there are mistakes of history in decisions and mistakes of fact.” (Day 3 of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Beginning at from 4:52:11 to 4:53:50 of the video posted at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mSyWoxGbpFg)
     Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown, in the amicus brief they filed in Dobbs v. Jackson, said “As Justice Gorsuch wrote in his Ramos concurrence, ‘stare decisis isn’t supposed to be the art of methodically ignoring what everyone knows to be true.’ Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op. at 23).” [www.supremecourt .gov/DocketPDF/19/191392/185063/20210727174713396_FINAL_Brown_Weiskopf_Dobbs_Amicus.pdf]
↑ More about “The [mistaken] premise... that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant...was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs”
     These quotes are repeated from earlier footnotes to Finding #3: notes #1, 8, 10.
     Dobbs v. Jackson explicitly ignored the central inquiry:
     There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was...spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being. Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point....One may disagree with this belief (and our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests), but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith of abortion opponents. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850 (“Men and women of good conscience can disagree . . . about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stage”). DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265
     Planned Parenthood v. Casey said the central inquiry is beyond human knowledge:
     “There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so.” Concurrence/Dissent by Scalia, Thomas, White. Planned Parenthood v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1982)
     Roe v. Wade said if doctors and preachers can’t resolve the central inquiry, mere judges certainly can’t figure it out:
     “Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973)
     In other words, Roe passed on “the central inquiry”, as the Center for Religious Expression observes:
     “The Roe Court demurred on the central inquiry. When the case was decided, the presence of a life inside a mother’s womb was a debatable topic, largely informed by religious and philosophical perspectives. [Roe passed] on “the difficult question of when life begins,” referencing differing belief systems). (Amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by Center for Religious Expression. www.supremecourt.gov/ DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185542/20210802 162418144_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Center%20for%20Religious%20Expression.pdf)
     An interesting word, “demurred”, was used by the Center for Religious Expression. It means whether or not the facts alleged are true, there is no case. No legal grounds to justify a prosecution. (See the variety of descriptions of the word at www.legaldictionary.net/demurrer/, www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrer, www.dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=487, www.britannica.com/topic/demurrer, and www.dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?searched= demurrer&type=1.)
     Roe said “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” As if that fact is irrelevant. As if whether or not it is true that babies of people are people, that is no legal reason to let states protect them.
     But the complete quote, above, doesn’t say “we need not resolve the...question” because it doesn’t matter, but because the justices thought themselves incompetent to establish the fact. Doctors, philosophers, and theologians can’t agree, so how can mere lowly Supreme Court Justices know if babies of humans are humans?
     “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” - Roe
     That interpretation is consistent with, and demanded by, the other notorious quote from Roe, found a few times in this book and common in prolife fundraising letters, that if “personhood” is “established” then “of course” the case for legal abortion “collapses”, since the 14th “Amendment” protects babies by not allowing any state to legalize abortion.
     I once “demurred” when it was time to plead “innocent” or “guilty” to the charge of “trespassing” at the door of a baby killer. Without disputing the facts, I saw no case, since it is not against American law to “trespass” in order to save lives.
     But Roe didn’t say the facts didn’t matter, but the opposite: the fact that babies of people are people, once “established”, is “of course” dispositive.
↑ More about “The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable....”
See Statement of Facts #1: “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.”
↑ More about “The fact that little unborn humans are humans...is verifiable and dispositive.”
     “Scrupulously neutral” was Justice Kavanaugh’s idea, in his Dobbs concurrence, about how to keep an abortion ruling virtuous. But what virtuous person leaves the lives of millions to be decided by their value to voters?
     Dobbs, like Casey and Roe before it, didn’t answer that central question. But at least in Roe the hope was expressed that the termination of a baby would not extinguish the life of a human person:
“Indeed,...we [in a previous case] would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if [we knew] the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions [that babies are people] raised by Texas...” – Roe v. Wade at 159. (The acknowledgment that Texas’ “contentions” are not “fully answered” by the working assumption of a past case proves that this is not a positive statement that SCOTUS knows babies are not people.)

     The hope expressed in Roe and ignored in Dobbs “that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person...is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus.” So stated the Illinois Right to Life amicus submitted in Dobbs v. Jackson. [See www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686_19-1392%20BRIEF%20FOR%20AMICUS%20CURIAE%20ILLINOIS%20RIGHT%20TO%20LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf] “Roe also rests on a determination that the humanity and personhood of a human fetus was not generally recognized in law. That legal context has changed as well.”
     Dobbs not only agreed, but proved “that legal context” (that personhood was not generally recognized in law) had never even existed. Dobbs corrected Roe’s history, showing that protection of unborn babies was “well rooted in America’s legal history” (although concluding only that abortion was not).
     IRTL notes the growing consensus since Roe of legislatures, which Roe treated as court-recognized fact finders: “Among other changes in the law, fetuses are now protected as human beings under laws prohibiting fetal homicide. Other laws, such as ‘heartbeat’ laws and laws protecting against fetal pain, which are increasingly being enacted by the states, demonstrate their interest in protecting the youngest and most vulnerable humans. Finally, changes in the laws and the availability of social services that support and protect pregnant women have ameliorated the plight of pregnancy and lessened the burden of child-rearing. All of these changes rob Roe of its factual and legal underpinnings.”
     And rob Dobbs of any conceivable justification for its “scrupulous neutrality”.
↑ More about “The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit...requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.”
To select this one invidious [a favorite court word meaning unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings – unborn babies – to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected.
Examples from America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Jews, Republicans, undocumented immigrants.
↑ More about “...definitions of ‘crimes against humanity’ apply ‘to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.’ ”

     “A crime against humanity occurs
     when the government withdraws legal protection
     from a class of human be�ings
     resulting in severe deprivation of rights,
     up to and including death.”
     - amicus in Dobbs of Melinda Thybault/Moral Outcry

     Melinda Thybault’s amicus brief was the 20th amicus docketed in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). (www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184968/ 20210726175018044_41206%20pdf%20Parker%20III%20br.pdf)
     Her references, backing up that damning judgment:
See “Crime Against Humanity” at www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ crime_against_humanity and see U.N. Office, Genocide Prevention, Crimes Against Humanity www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml; Treaty of Rome (1957). See also Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War.

     Her characterization of international documents is not only fair, but it understates the culpability of elected representatives. Actual quotes from the documents lay responsibility at the feet, not just of impersonal unaccountable “government”, but of government’s “representatives”.
     Notice in the following definitions that those targeted for prosecution in international human rights tribunals include elected representatives and senators who “tolerate” crimes against humanity – who don’t actively execute their authority to criminalize these assaults on the Image of God. (Genesis 1:27) “Genocide”, defined: “Genocide means...acts...with intent to destroy...in part, a national...group [in our case, Americans] [by] killing members of the group [in our case, babies; and by] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group....” Here is the complete United Nations statement:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide / Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 / Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XII / www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

     The 1948 definition above is cited in the following 1968 United Nations General Assembly resolution (which took effect two years later) which nullifies any “statute of limitations” on “crimes against humanity”:

Article I: No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:...(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations,...the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

     The following Article II applies the call for prosecution at any time, not limited by a Statute of Limitations, to elected representatives. The word “elected” is not there, but the context certainly includes them, especially since one cannot “represent” another, as the word is normally defined, without their voluntary authorization.

Article II: If any of the crimes mentioned in article I is committed, the provisions of this Convention shall apply to representatives of the State authority and private individuals who, as principals or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes, or who conspire to commit them, irrespective of the degree of completion, and to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission. (Article II, Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War, ADOPTED 26 November 1968 BY General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII))

     If [genocide] is committed,
     the provisions of this Convention shall apply
     to representatives of the State authority
     who tolerate [its] commission.

     Thybault writes, “...the Court has not yet fully reversed Roe, Doe, and Casey.” She submitted this observation to the Court which finally reversed all three, technically, although the slaughter continues in most states so her observation is still timely.
     “No American citizen should have to live under, nor as history tragically demonstrates, should they stand by silently, while their government sanctions and even promotes crimes against humanity.”
     Another low point in the Supreme Court’s grasp of 14th Amendment equal rights, she mentions, was Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which, like Roe and Dred Scott, “denied legal protection to a class of human beings” and “ignored the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment”. “Plessy accepted the gloss that ‘separate but equal’ was ‘equal’.”
     She repeats, “When the government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings, it is the classic definition of a crime against humanity.”

[1] More about “a ‘mistake of fact’...is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, described Roe v. Wade as “precedent upon precedent”, yet when asked by a Democrat about a precedent that Democrats don’t like, (Citizens United), he explained that a “mistake of facts” is one of Stare Decisis’ official grounds for overturning precedents. (Stare Decisis means “Let the decision stand”. Precedents should be followed except when their errors are clear.) Here is an excerpt:
Whitehouse: “The hypothetical problem that I have has to do with an appellate court which makes a finding of fact. Asserts a proposition of fact to be true. And upon that proposition hangs the decision that it reaches. The question is, what happens when that proposition of fact...turns out not to be true?” ...
Kavanaugh: “[This is] wrapped up in a question of precedent and Stare Decisis. And one of the things you could look at, one of the factors you could look at, how wrong was the decision, and if it is based on an erroneous factual premise, that is clearly one of the factors... Mistakes of history. Sometimes there are mistakes of history in decisions and mistakes of fact.” (Day 3 of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Beginning at from 4:52:11 to 4:53:50 of the video posted at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mSyWoxGbpFg)
Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown, in the amicus brief they filed in Dobbs v. Jackson, said “As Justice Gorsuch wrote in his Ramos concurrence, ‘stare decisis isn’t supposed to be the art of methodically ignoring what everyone knows to be true.’ Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op. at 23).” [www.supremecourt .gov/DocketPDF/19/191392/185063/20210727174713396_FINAL_Brown_Weiskopf_Dobbs_Amicus.pdf]

[2] More about “The [mistaken] premise... that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant...was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs”
These quotes are repeated from earlier footnotes to Finding #3: notes #1, 8, 10.
Dobbs v. Jackson explicitly ignored the central inquiry:
There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was...spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being. Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point....One may disagree with this belief (and our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests), but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith of abortion opponents. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850 (“Men and women of good conscience can disagree . . . about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stage”). DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265
Planned Parenthood v. Casey said the central inquiry is beyond human knowledge:
“There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so.” Concurrence/Dissent by Scalia, Thomas, White. Planned Parenthood v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1982)
Roe v. Wade said if doctors and preachers can’t resolve the central inquiry, mere judges certainly can’t figure it out:
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973)
In other words, Roe passed on “the central inquiry”, as the Center for Religious Expression observes:
“The Roe Court demurred on the central inquiry. When the case was decided, the presence of a life inside a mother’s womb was a debatable topic, largely informed by religious and philosophical perspectives. [Roe passed] on “the difficult question of when life begins,” referencing differing belief systems). (Amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by Center for Religious Expression. www.supremecourt.gov/ DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185542/20210802 162418144_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Center%20for%20Religious%20Expression.pdf)
An interesting word, “demurred”, was used by the Center for Religious Expression. It means whether or not the facts alleged are true, there is no case. No legal grounds to justify a prosecution. (See the variety of descriptions of the word at www.legaldictionary.net/demurrer/, www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrer, www.dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=487, www.britannica.com/topic/demurrer, and www.dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?searched= demurrer&type=1.)
Roe said “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” As if that fact is irrelevant. As if whether or not it is true that babies of people are people, that is no legal reason to let states protect them.
But the complete quote, above, doesn’t say “we need not resolve the...question” because it doesn’t matter, but because the justices thought themselves incompetent to establish the fact. Doctors, philosophers, and theologians can’t agree, so how can mere lowly Supreme Court Justices know if babies of humans are humans?
“When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” - Roe
That interpretation is consistent with, and demanded by, the other notorious quote from Roe, found a few times in this book and common in prolife fundraising letters, that if “personhood” is “established” then “of course” the case for legal abortion “collapses”, since the 14th “Amendment” protects babies by not allowing any state to legalize abortion.
I once “demurred” when it was time to plead “innocent” or “guilty” to the charge of “trespassing” at the door of a baby killer. Without disputing the facts, I saw no case, since it is not against American law to “trespass” in order to save lives.
But Roe didn’t say the facts didn’t matter, but the opposite: the fact that babies of people are people, once “established”, is “of course” dispositive.

[3] More about “The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable....”
See Statement of Facts #1: “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.”

[4] More about “The fact that little unborn humans are humans...is verifiable and dispositive.”
“Scrupulously neutral” was Justice Kavanaugh’s idea, in his Dobbs concurrence, about how to keep an abortion ruling virtuous. But what virtuous person leaves the lives of millions to be decided by their value to voters?
Dobbs, like Casey and Roe before it, didn’t answer that central question. But at least in Roe the hope was expressed that the termination of a baby would not extinguish the life of a human person:
“Indeed,...we [in a previous case] would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if [we knew] the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions [that babies are people] raised by Texas...” – Roe v. Wade at 159. (The acknowledgment that Texas’ “contentions” are not “fully answered” by the working assumption of a past case proves that this is not a positive statement that SCOTUS knows babies are not people.)

The hope expressed in Roe and ignored in Dobbs “that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person...is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus.” So stated the Illinois Right to Life amicus submitted in Dobbs v. Jackson. [See www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686_19-1392%20BRIEF%20FOR%20AMICUS%20CURIAE%20ILLINOIS%20RIGHT%20TO%20LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf] “Roe also rests on a determination that the humanity and personhood of a human fetus was not generally recognized in law. That legal context has changed as well.”
Dobbs not only agreed, but proved “that legal context” (that personhood was not generally recognized in law) had never even existed. Dobbs corrected Roe’s history, showing that protection of unborn babies was “well rooted in America’s legal history” (although concluding only that abortion was not).
IRTL notes the growing consensus since Roe of legislatures, which Roe treated as court-recognized fact finders: “Among other changes in the law, fetuses are now protected as human beings under laws prohibiting fetal homicide. Other laws, such as ‘heartbeat’ laws and laws protecting against fetal pain, which are increasingly being enacted by the states, demonstrate their interest in protecting the youngest and most vulnerable humans. Finally, changes in the laws and the availability of social services that support and protect pregnant women have ameliorated the plight of pregnancy and lessened the burden of child-rearing. All of these changes rob Roe of its factual and legal underpinnings.”
And rob Dobbs of any conceivable justification for its “scrupulous neutrality”.

[5] More about “The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit...requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.”
To select this one invidious [a favorite court word meaning unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings – unborn babies – to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected.
Examples from America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Jews, Republicans, undocumented immigrants.

[6] More about “...definitions of ‘crimes against humanity’ apply ‘to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.’ ”

“A crime against humanity occurs
when the government withdraws legal protection
from a class of human be�ings
resulting in severe deprivation of rights,
up to and including death.”
- amicus in Dobbs of Melinda Thybault/Moral Outcry

Melinda Thybault’s amicus brief was the 20th amicus docketed in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). (www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184968/ 20210726175018044_41206%20pdf%20Parker%20III%20br.pdf)
Her references, backing up that damning judgment:
See “Crime Against Humanity” at www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ crime_against_humanity and see U.N. Office, Genocide Prevention, Crimes Against Humanity www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml; Treaty of Rome (1957). See also Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War.

Her characterization of international documents is not only fair, but it understates the culpability of elected representatives. Actual quotes from the documents lay responsibility at the feet, not just of impersonal unaccountable “government”, but of government’s “representatives”.
Notice in the following definitions that those targeted for prosecution in international human rights tribunals include elected representatives and senators who “tolerate” crimes against humanity – who don’t actively execute their authority to criminalize these assaults on the Image of God. (Genesis 1:27) “Genocide”, defined: “Genocide means...acts...with intent to destroy...in part, a national...group [in our case, Americans] [by] killing members of the group [in our case, babies; and by] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group....” Here is the complete United Nations statement:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide / Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 / Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XII / www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

The 1948 definition above is cited in the following 1968 United Nations General Assembly resolution (which took effect two years later) which nullifies any “statute of limitations” on “crimes against humanity”:

Article I: No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:...(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations,...the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

The following Article II applies the call for prosecution at any time, not limited by a Statute of Limitations, to elected representatives. The word “elected” is not there, but the context certainly includes them, especially since one cannot “represent” another, as the word is normally defined, without their voluntary authorization.

Article II: If any of the crimes mentioned in article I is committed, the provisions of this Convention shall apply to representatives of the State authority and private individuals who, as principals or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes, or who conspire to commit them, irrespective of the degree of completion, and to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission. (Article II, Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War, ADOPTED 26 November 1968 BY General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII))

If [genocide] is committed,
the provisions of this Convention shall apply
to representatives of the State authority
who tolerate [its] commission.

Thybault writes, “...the Court has not yet fully reversed Roe, Doe, and Casey.” She submitted this observation to the Court which finally reversed all three, technically, although the slaughter continues in most states so her observation is still timely.
“No American citizen should have to live under, nor as history tragically demonstrates, should they stand by silently, while their government sanctions and even promotes crimes against humanity.”
Another low point in the Supreme Court’s grasp of 14th Amendment equal rights, she mentions, was Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which, like Roe and Dred Scott, “denied legal protection to a class of human beings” and “ignored the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment”. “Plessy accepted the gloss that ‘separate but equal’ was ‘equal’.”
She repeats, “When the government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings, it is the classic definition of a crime against humanity.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 <ref>More about “...definitions of ‘crimes against humanity’ apply ‘to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.’ ”
 <br>
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“A crime against humanity occurs
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“''A crime against humanity occurs''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;when the government withdraws legal protection
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''when the government withdraws legal protection''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;from a class of human be�ings
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''from a class of human be�ings''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;resulting in severe deprivation of rights,
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''resulting in severe deprivation of rights,''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;up to and including death.”
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''up to and including death.”''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- amicus in Dobbs of Melinda Thybault/Moral Outcry
+<br>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Melinda Thybault’s amicus brief was the 20th amicus docketed in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). (www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184968/ 20210726175018044_41206%20pdf%20Parker%20III%20br.pdf)
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Her references, backing up that damning judgment:
 <blockquote>See “Crime Against Humanity” at www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ crime_against_humanity and see U.N. Office, Genocide Prevention, Crimes Against Humanity www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml; Treaty of Rome (1957). See also Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War.</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Her characterization of international documents is not only fair, but it understates the culpability of elected representatives. Actual quotes from the documents lay responsibility at the feet, not just of impersonal unaccountable “government”, but of government’s “representatives”.
@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 “Genocide”, defined: “Genocide means...acts...with intent to destroy...in part, a national...group [in our case, Americans] [by] killing members of the group [in our case, babies; and by] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group....”
 Here is the complete United Nations statement:
 <blockquote>Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:</blockquote>
 <blockquote>(a) Killing members of the group;</blockquote>
@@ Line 96: / Line 95: @@
 <blockquote>e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.</blockquote>
 <blockquote>- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide / Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 / Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XII / www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 1948 definition above is cited in the following 1968 United Nations General Assembly resolution (which took effect two years later) which nullifies any “statute of limitations” on “crimes against humanity”:
 <blockquote>Article I: No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:...(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations,...the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The following Article II applies the call for prosecution at any time, not limited by a Statute of Limitations, to elected representatives. The word “elected” is not there, but the context certainly includes them, especially since one cannot “represent” another, as the word is normally defined, without their voluntary authorization.
 <blockquote>Article II: If any of the crimes mentioned in article I is committed, the provisions of this Convention shall apply to representatives of the State authority and private individuals who, as principals or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes, or who conspire to commit them, irrespective of the degree of completion, and to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission. (Article II, Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War, ADOPTED 26 November 1968 BY General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII))</blockquote>
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If [genocide] is committed,
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''If [genocide] is committed''',
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the provisions of this Convention shall apply
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''the provisions of this Convention shall apply'''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to representatives of the State authority
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''to representatives of the State authority'''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;who tolerate [its] commission.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''who tolerate [its] commission'''.
 <br>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thybault writes, “...the Court has not yet fully reversed Roe, Doe, and Casey.” She submitted this observation to the Court which finally reversed all three, technically, although the slaughter continues in most states so her observation is still timely.

Difference between revisions of "Statement 5 + Footnotes"

Revision as of 20:32, 17 October 2023

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools