Reversing Landmark Abomination Cases

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.

---

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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

It is for strong reasons that the findings of court-recognized fact finders are as respected in court as in the Court of Public Opinion.6

Footnotes: see Statement 2 + Footnotes

---

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.

But SCOTUS never ruled babies Non-Persons “as a Matter of Law”, as lower courts allege.

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: “[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....”

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....”

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.

Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that “establishment” of this fact, independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment, dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime.

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.

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”.

---

FOOTNOTES

---

Footnotes: see Statement 3 + Footnotes

Statement of Facts #4 of12: 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.

Footnotes: see Statement 4 + Footnotes

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

Footnotes: see Statement 5 + Footnotes

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 draws not only courts, but society, closer to reality.4

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

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

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 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)

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”.

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

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”.

“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 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

Statement of Facts #9 of 12: SCOTUS never denied that state personhood laws are strong evidence in an abortion case

SCOTUS never said Personhood Laws are impotent. SCOTUS only said a personhood law by itself, without penalties, (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. 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

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

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!

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

Statement of Facts #10 of 12: “Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions

Evidence of Life is not disproved by an “exception...for the purpose of saving the life of the mother” and/or by not charging the mother with being a “principal or an accomplice” to murder, as Roe’s footnote 54 was generally interpreted, and as many prolifers still believe.1

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!

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).

Legal and moral reasons for a “life of the mother” exception are that (1) while babies have a fundamental right to live, so do mothers; and (2) while we are inspired by people who give their lives for others, we can’t require them to by law. Even our Good Samaritan laws, requiring people at accident scenes to help, are sparse and inconsistent.

It would be hypocritical to charge aborting moms with being accessories to murder, without first charging judges. The degree to which laws fail to give “equal protection” to all humans is no evidence of the degree to which people are not humans. Such a legal theory is absurd, unknown outside Footnote 54,2 cannot be taken seriously, and certainly merits no attention as it faults laws for being no better than is humanly possible.

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

Statement of Facts #11 of 12: 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

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”.

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.

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.

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

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

Statement of Facts #12 of 12: Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable

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

Should any federal judge so interfere, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action.3

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

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