Revision as of 04:10, 3 October 2023

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

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.

1 Introduction
- 1.1 Bible Nugget: free wisdom, guaranteed success
- 1.2 Final Warning: read this at your own risk
2 Part 1: Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders
- 2.1 Statement of Fact #1. Court-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human
- 2.2 Bible Nugget #2: The Cost of 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.

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:

Statement of Fact #1. Court-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human

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

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

↑ More about “...murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize”
     The legal goal of outlawing abortion in every state is dismissed by every SCOTUS justice and by most prolife lawyers, (quotes follow), but that goal has failed only by ignoring this consensus of fact finders - “the Mammoth in the Room”. It has been successfully ignored only because prolife lawmakers have not placed it in Findings of Facts where judges were forced to address it.
     The Constitution isn’t as bad as prolifers think: Schluetter.
     Debating with Judge Bork, Law professor Nathan Schluetter at Hillsdale College wrote in 2003: “It is surprising...that on this most central constitutional and moral issue [that babies are in fact people so we shouldn’t murder them] a preponderance of pro-life advocates and legal scholars continually misinterpret the Constitution. According to them, a proper reading of the Constitution would [go no farther than to] reject [Roe’s] concept of a privacy right to abortion, and thus return the nation to the pre-Roe status quo in which the decision of when, whether, and how to regulate [murder] was left to the states. In offering this 'restoration interpretation,' they ignore or reject the proper interpretation, which would extend the [right to life] of the Fourteenth Amendment to unborn persons [which will outlaw baby killing in every state]. This is what I will call in this essay the ‘unborn person interpretation.’
     “They continue to do this despite the fact that both the majority in  Roe  and the appellants to the case conceded that if the personhood of the unborn [or, the fact that babies of people are real people] could be established, ‘the [abortionist’s] case, [for legalizing baby killing in every state] of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state].’
     “To gauge the pervasiveness of the restoration interpretation among life advocates, one need only consult [a past issue of this publication]. Forty-five leading pro-life advocates, including Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life, Wanda Franz of the National Right to Life Committee, and Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, signed a much heralded joint ‘Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern’ published in First Things in 1996 in which the primary legal complaint was made that  Roe  ‘wounded American democracy’ by removing the issue of abortion from 'democratic concern.'
     “The statement suggested two legal remedies: first, the Supreme Court could reverse  Roe , returning the issue to the states; second, the nation could pass a constitutional amendment that would extend Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to unborn persons.
     “The statement does not even hint at the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons [based on the indisputable fact that babies are real people, requiring no additional legal recognition of their right to life]. The First Things statement seems to reflect the unanimous opinion of those Justices on the Supreme Court who have urged reversing Roe , not one of whom has attempted to make or even respond in their opinions to the unborn person interpretation. [Not even the most liberal justices have denied that babies are real people, yet not even the most conservative justices consider the indisputable evidence worth mentioning.]
     This misunderstanding doesn’t just threaten babies. “However well-intentioned, the arguments of the restoration advocates are usually grounded in an epistemological skepticism that is alien to normal constitutional interpretation and harmful to the political morality on which free government is based.”
↑ More about “Juries/court-recognized Finders of Facts”
     When juries ruled that babies are real people. When prolifers blocked abortionists’ doors before 1993, the only seriously disputed fact issue at trial was whether human lives were saved. The earliest juries ruled that they were, and acquitted, so judges stopped letting juries hear that defense. Abortionists were so scared of juries thinking babies are people, that when a judge decided to let the jury hear that defense, the abortionist would drop the prosecution.
     A law school journal reports: “After the court ruled that it would allow the [Necessity] Defense to go to the jury, the Women for Women Clinic dropped the prosecution. If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution, which is merely proving the elements of criminal trespass. [Except for the one element that matters, and the only contested trial issue: whether lives were saved.] Rather than risk such a precedent, many clinics prefer to dismiss. In fact, defense counsel have admitted that their intent is to bring the abortion issue back before the United States Supreme Court to consider the very question of when life begins, an issue on which the Court refused to rule in Roe...” (The Cincinnati Law Review footnote analyzes the case of Ohio v. Rinear, No. 78999CRB-3706 (Mun. Ct. Hamilton County, Ohio, dismissed May 2, 1978)
     Juries don’t usually give reasons for their verdicts. I (Dave Leach, author) was a defendant in such a trial, where the judge allowed the jury to hear the defense, the abortionist let the case proceed, and the jury acquitted. State v. Brouillette, et al, Johnson County, Iowa, 1989. 155 of us were arrested January 26, 1989 for blocking the doors of the Emma Goldman clinic in Iowa City, Iowa. Rather than pack all 155 in the court room, 16 of us were tried in the first batch. It was assumed that what happened to them would drive what happened later to the rest; especially since J. Patrick White, the prosecuting county attorney, had told newspapers that if the first 16 were acquitted there is no way he would prosecute the others.
     How God provided an official record of the jury’s reasons. But after the jury acquitted the first 16, White refused to dismiss, and that is the only reason we have an official court record documenting that the Defense of Justification was the only issue before the jury. The jury didn’t say so, but the judge did, in his ruling dismissing the remaining charges. That ruling is so helpful, and the difficulty of getting an official record of a jury’s reasons so great, that God must be credited and thanked for presumably hardening the heart of the prosecutor so the judge had to rule.
     The judge wrote that both sides stipulated to (officially agreed about) the facts. “Each Defendant stipulated to his or her identity; to entering and remaining upon public property; and to failing to leave said public property after being notified and requested to vacate by persons whose duty it was to supervise the use and maintenance of this property. By this stipulation, the sole element of the offense of Criminal Trespass which remained to be proven was whether each defendant acted without justification. [Violating a minor offense, like trespassing, is “justified” when it is “necessary” to save lives.] The verdict of the jury indicates the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the one essential element of the charge which remained in issue.
     “In a trial of the remaining 138 Defendants, [one of the 155 arrested was juvenile and was not charged], a jury would be presented with this identical issue. So the remaining charges should be dropped by the theory of Issue Preclusion - if Joe is found innocent after doing something, Jack should be after doing the same thing.)”
     Another such case may be Northern Virginia Women's Medical Center v. Balch, 617 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (4th Cir. 1980) which refers to two unreported cases where “necessity” led to acquittals. But it is not clear whether it was a jury or “bench” trial.
↑ More about “Expert Witnesses/court-recognized Fact Finders’”
     Doctors & geneticists routinely testified in “Operation Rescue”-type door-blocking trials. See footnote #4: “If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution,” The evidence is presented by expert witnesses – doctors, geneticists, etc.
     When a world famous geneticist flew from France to Wichita. A case widely reported among prolifers was when Elizabeth Tilson, a defendant who blocked an abortion door so mothers couldn’t go inside to kill their babies, flew in a world famous geneticist from France to Judge Paul Clark’s Wichita court. There was no jury, but a “bench” trial over which Clark presided. His lengthy ruling, acquitting Tilson, is reported in Appendix H of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. A paperback is available at Amazon; a free PDF is posted at www.Saltshaker.us.
     How Courts Dodged Overwhelming Evidence of Life. The defense raised in virtually all those trials of all those 60,000+ arrested life savers was based on American law, not religion. I know of no case where anyone asked for a religious exemption from letting the slaughter continue, or who gave Bible verses as the reason they should be acquitted. And yet courts routinely dismissed legitimate legal defenses as being exclusively religious.
     Surely the most notorious example was Elizabeth Tilson’s defense on July 20, 1992. She even flew in the world’s top geneticist from France, Dr. LeJeune, to testify about “when life begins”. District Judge Paul Clark, summarizing the defense and ruling in her favor, did not indicate religion was any part of the defense. (See excerpts in Appendix H, p. 145.) Yet the Kansas Court dismissed all that world-class scientific evidence as a “moral or ethical belief” of some dowdy no-account religious kook housewife who expects law to bow to her superstitions.

If recognized as [a] defense in [a] criminal case, justification by necessity defense only applies when [the] harm or evil which [the] defendant seeks to prevent by his or her own criminal conduct is legal[ly recognized] harm or evil as opposed to moral or ethical belief of individual defendant....defendants did not engage in illegal conduct because they were faced with a choice of evils. Rather, they intentionally trespassed on complainant's property in order to interfere with the rights of others....City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993)

     But what about the world-class testimony that human beings were being slaughtered? Completely irrelevant, the court said. We have to follow “law”, not some frowsy housewife’s “moral or ethical belief”:


In a criminal prosecution for trespass upon the property of an abortion clinic, the defense of justification by necessity is inapplicable and evidence of when life begins is irrelevant. The admission of evidence of when life begins in such an action was error by the trial court....Judge Paul Clark held that...the defendant was absolved of any criminal liability for her actions, based upon the necessity defense [which] justified her trespassing upon the Clinic property for the purpose of saving a human life. At trial, over the objections of the City, the defendant was allowed to introduce expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The City did not attempt to controvert such evidence but instead took the position that the evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant. City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993)

     Her REAL motive, said the Court, was not “saving a human life” as documented by the world’s leading expert on genetics at all, but was “to interfere with the rights of others” according to some individual’s “moral or ethical belief”
     This is not an isolated “straw man” misconstruction of a serious legal defense. Appellate courts did it routinely. Appendix F of my book, linked in Note 3, gives examples. If we could trust courts to never do that again, this book could be a lot shorter.
     Doctors testifying as official Expert Witnesses in “rescue” trials was so routine that even I had one in my own trial. I found a doctor to testify in my own trial after I was arrested for sitting in front of a Planned Barrenhood door to prevent mothers from coming in to murder their babies. It was after a workshop put on by “rescuers” to educate people who had never been inside a courtroom how to conduct ourselves in court, since few of us could afford a lawyer and lawyers successful in such cases could not be found. Doctors willing to testify for free were plentiful. Their testimony was routine in “rescue” trials, even after judges stopped allowing juries to hear them. There were not just a few trials. In about 1992 Operation Rescue reported that there had been over 60,000 arrests of door-blockers.
     After judges stopped letting juries listen to the witnesses, doctors still testified, but after sending the jury out. It is called a “proffer” of evidence; the judge rules that it is irrelevant, but he will let the evidence go into the record so that it will be there for any appeal.
     Updated science is summarized by the Illinois Right to Life in their amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson. “Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in his testimony in connection with the 1981 hearing on Senate Bill 158, the Human Life Bill, see infra at 15-16, concluded, ‘I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.’ Cited in House Resolution No. 214, https://perma. cc/6XRG-L2C8.
     The Consensus of Biologists. “b. An overwhelming majority of biologists recognize that a human’s life begins at fertilization. A recent international study involving 5,577 biologists from 86 countries who work at 1,061 top-ranked academic institutions confirmed the scientific consensus on when life begins. The study asked biologists to confirm or reject five statements that represent the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization. The majority of the biologists in the study identified as liberal (89%), pro#choice (85%), and non-religious (63%). 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed at least one of the statements and only 240 participants declined to affirm any statements (4%).
     The study participants were also asked to answer an essay question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” Most biologists (68%) indicated fertilization. Thus, while in Roe, the Court found that experts could not arrive at any consensus at that point in the development of man’s knowledge, that is no longer the case.” [American participants included biologists from Harvard University, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Yale University. See When Does Life Begin?, Illinois Right to Life, https://perma.cc/U99P-4Y6C. Steven A. Jacobs, Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate, Knowledge@Uchicago, 2019, https://perma.cc/GZT2-8JDN
     An Official Senate Report. “c. Legislative hearings on when life begins marshalled scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization. During hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, numerous scientific experts testified regarding when life begins. The Official Senate Report concluded that: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” [Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7] In the hearings, Dr. Jerome Lejeune testified that “[l]ife has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning – the moment of its conception” because “[t]o accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence.” S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 transcript, 18. [ S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 Transcript, https://perma. cc/6DCT-UT4P.]
     No alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in scientific literature. “Experts from leading institutions have testified that there are no alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in the scientific literature. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor of Medical Genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic, testified: “I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against.” Id. at 52. This lack of any published, let alone generally accepted, alternative scientific theories was also attested to by Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate in the Department of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Id. at 41-42. ...
     A few disagree but without even trying to invoke science, medicine, or facts. “While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.”
     Even baby killers admit they are killing baby humans. "d. Even doctors who perform abortions and proponents of abortion rights admit fetuses are human beings. Many practitioners of abortion and supporters of abortion rights acknowledge human life begins at conception.(26) For example, when abortion doctor Dr. Curtis Boyd was interviewed, he acknowledged with respect to abortion: “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.”(27) Abortion rights supporter and ethicist Peter Singer has written that being “a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
     e. Views opposing the position that human life starts at fertilization are unscientific and ideological.
     While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.
     ....Ultimately, opposing arguments to the scientific consensus that a human’s life begins at fertilization are fallacious or focus on aspects of biology that are not relevant to the biological classification of human beings.
     26. Derek Smith, Pro-Choice Concedes: Prominent Abortion Proponents Concede The Barbarity Of Abortion, Human Defense Initiative, Nov. 7, 2018, https://perma.cc/GXH8-MAUU. See also, A New Ethic for Medicine and Society, California Medicine, Sep. 1970.
27. KVUE Austin Interview of Dr. Curtis Boyd, at 0:23, YouTube, Nov. 6, 2009, https://perma.cc/GYB2-3YFY.
↑ More about “State Legislatures/court-recognized Fact Finders”
     “At least 38 states”, (enough to enact a Constitutional Amendment), “have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.” Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728 (Ala. 2012) The ruling’s basis: “State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622, 689 n. 46, 998 A.2d 1, 50 n.46 (2010) (‘[As of March 2010], at least [thirty-eight] states have fetal homicide laws.’ (quoting the National Conference of State Legislatures, Fetal Homicide Laws (March 2010) (alterations in Courchesne)”
     Amicus filed in Dobbs by Illinois Right to Life:
     LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf “Fetuses are recognized as human persons in numerous contexts: (1) laws that restrict abortion at some point in fetal development, (2) fetal homicide laws, (3) prohibitions against capital punishment imposed upon pregnant women, (4) recovery for fetal deaths under wrongful death statutes, (5) the rights of preborn children under property law, (6) legal guardianship of prenatal humans, [See Paul Benjamin Linton, The Legal Status of the Unborn Child Under State Law, 6 U. St. Thomas J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 2011, https://perma.cc/XB8E-G375. ] (7) the rights of preborn children to a deceased parent’s Social Security and Disability benefits[SSR 68-22: SECTION 216(h)(3)(C). – Relationship – Status of Illegitimate Posthumous Child, Social Security Administration, https://perma.cc/W3TR-89L9. ], and (8) the rights of inheritance of posthumously born children.[. Alea Roberts, Where’s My Share?: Inheritance Rights of Posthumous Children, American Bar Association, Jun. 13, 2019, https://perma.cc/36VN-HZZ8 ] Despite the plethora of contexts in which fetuses are recognized as persons under the law, this Court has yet to recognize the personhood of preborn humans.
     “b. States are increasingly proposing and enacting laws protective of unborn human beings even when abortion is curtailed as a result.
     “Today, 43 states have enacted laws protecting prenatal humans although abortion is thereby restricted. All but one restrict abortion access at the earliest point permissible by Roe (viability), and states have recently more emphatically asserted a state interest in the lives of previable human beings by seeking to protect them: (1) after the sixth week since that is known to be the point at which a fetus’ heart first beats (AL HB314; IA SF359) and (2) after the twentieth week since that has been found toItalic text be the point at which a fetus can first feel pain (OH SB 127).”
     States don’t unanimously protect the unborn, but no state finds that unborn babies are not human persons. Plus, 38 states is enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Not that they should: as other Findings observe, there is already more than enough consensus of fact finders to require outlawing of abortion in every state; and the consensus of fact finders is actually a stronger legal reason than a constitutional amendment, since no other Amendment was ratified to establish a fact.) Illinois Right to Life:
Changes in the law have further eroded the underpinnings Roe. Those changes [legally] recognize the human fetus as a human being.

a. Enactment of fetal homicide laws in almost 80% of states demonstrates that, outside of the abortion context, a human fetus is legally recognized as a human being.

In its 1973 Roe decision, the Court stated, “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 162. This has changed markedly since that time. Legislators in 38 of 50 states have enacted laws that criminalize the intentional killing of a human fetus. These “fetal homicide” laws, which only apply to non-abortive killings, recognize that preborn human fetuses are human beings entitled to protection under the law. In this context, a majority of states today recognize a human fetus as a human person from the moment of fertilization.

     The fact that babies are people is established by this consensus of states – of all who have taken a position. (Not even the “bluest” state asserts that they are not people, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.) This affirmation is not diminished by the failure of some states to protect babies from abortion. The response to facts by humans is an unreliable way to document facts. But regarding this fact, the verdict is unanimous.
↑ More about “Judges/Fact Finders”
     One example is Judge Paul Clark: see footnote 3. Another is Justice Dimond in Alaska: Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, 631 P.2d 1073, 1084:
     (Concurring:) "I empathize with the defendants' sorrow over the loss of human lives caused by abortions. I believe the United States Supreme Court burdened this court with a tragic decision when it held in Roe...that the word “person, as used in the fourteenth amendment, does not include the unborn...”, and that states cannot “override the rights of the pregnant woman” by “adopting one theory of life.”
     "I do not agree with the Court's conclusion that a state's interest in potential life does not become “compelling” until the fetus has attained viability. It stated its explanation for this conclusion as follows:
     "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” (410 U.S. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 731-32, 35 L.Ed.2d at 183) As Professor Tribe indicates, “One reads the court's explanation [of the magic line called “viability”] several times before becoming convinced that nothing has inadvertently been omitted.” (Tribe, Forward to The Supreme Court 1972 Term, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1. 4 (1973](footnote omitted]). I agree with Professor Tribe when he states, “Clearly, this (analysis] mistakes a definition for a syllogism”, and offers no reason at all for what the Court has held. (Id., quoting Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade , 82 Yale L.J. 920, 924 (1973](footnotes omitted]).
     "In effect, the Supreme Court held that because there is no consensus as to when human life begins it can act as if it were proven that human life does not begin until birth so as to preserve to women the right to make their own decision whether an abortion takes a human life or not. It would make more sense to me if, in the face of uncertainty, any error made were side in favor of the fetus, which many believe to be human life.
     "The development of a zygote into a human child is a continual, progressive development. No one suggests that the born child is not a human being. It seems undeniable, however, that human life begins before birth. As Professor Curran states:
     “ '[T]he fetus one day before birth and the child one day after birth are not that significantly or qualitatively different – in any respect; Even outside the womb the newborn child is not independent but remains greatly dependent on the mother and others. Birth in fact does not really tell much about the individual as such but only where the individual is--either outside the womb or still Inside the womb.' (C. Curran, Transition and Tradition in Moral Theology, p. 209 (1919]). Similarly, viability does not mark the beginning of the truly human being.
     [V]iability again indicates more about where the fetus can live than what it is. The fetus immediately before viability is not that qualitatively different from the viable fetus. In addition viability is a very inexact criterion because it is intimately connected with medical and scientific advances. In the future it might very well be possible for the fetus to live in an artificial womb or even with an artificial placenta from a very early stage in fetal development.
     I join with those persons who believe that truly human life begins sometime between the second and third week after conception...."
     A dissent by Justice Mahoney said
     “Until the Court decides when a fetus is a person, I see no reason to deny the defense of necessity to those who believe that the fetus is viable and is a person...At least it would get the issue squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court....” Detwiler v. Akron, C.A. No. 14385 at 22 (9th App. Dist. 1990)
↑ More about “Congress/court-recognized Fact Finder
18 U.S.C. 1841(d) “...the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
Finding #7 explains why this Personhood statement is as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment, and is NOT mitigated by section (c), as alleged by the National Right to Life Committee and by Republican Congressmen.
↑ More about “No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected ‘life begins’ any later than conception.”
     No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not even New York’s January 22, 2019 law.
     This needs to be clarified because conservative news reported as if New York became an exception. Not that the law was harmless. It legalized abortions through birth when the abortionist alleged the baby would die soon anyway. It allowed non-doctors to kill babies. It repealed a law requiring a second physician to be present in case an infant was born alive and needed care.
     But it didn’t define “person” to only mean human beings who are born, leaving unborn humans defined as non-persons. The articles I found didn’t exactly say that, but they implied that by reporting the definition of “persons”, without reporting that the definition was not added by the new law but had been in the law for years, and without reporting the context of the definition which simply means that when the coroner investigates dead bodies found in his county, or in a jail, he will not investigate unborn babies. It also means a judge, when excluding the public from divorce or rape trials, will not exclude unborn babies.
     The definition: “ ‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”
     As I said, the conservative reports didn’t directly say the definition meant that unborn babies were defined as nonpersons, so most readers might not have thought about it. But because I had been claiming that no American legal authority had ever ruled that babies become real people at any later time than fertilization, I wanted to look into it to see if New York had created an exception.
     You can verify that the definition was already in the law by reading the bill, and noting that the phrase is not underlined, which is how additions to laws are indicated. See &Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y You can also verify it by reading the law as of 2016, which includes that definition. [1]
     You can read the Breitbart report at 2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/
     You can read the Townhall report at laurettabrown/2 019/01/23/new-york-passes-extreme-abortion-legislation-on-the-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade-n2539902
     The law had previously read “Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an unborn child....]” The 2019 law deleted the part in brackets.
     The definition previously had two more paragraphs which the 2019 law deleted. They defined the terms “abortional act” and “justifiable abortional act” which had been used in the now deleted law against late term abortion.
     This point is worth clearing up because it is a very strong, important argument for the legal recognizability of all unborn babies as humans/persons, and of all abortions as murder, that no American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not one.
     Not even foreign legal authorities support any right to abortion. 141 International Legal Scholars submitted an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson case declaring that “Whatever role international law plays in evaluating abortion regulations in the United States, it offers no basis for the existence of a human right to abortion.” (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185170/20210729071535904_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20141%20International%20Legal%20Scholars.pdf) “The minority of States that choose to allow elective abortion impose a standard gestational limit of twelve weeks, which is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.”
     “If the Court chooses to consult international law in this case, it will find there is no treaty that recognizes a so-called human right to abortion, nor has such a right been established through customary law. To the contrary, the practice across all regions demonstrates a consistent State prerogative to protect unborn life. Nor has any international court declared the existence of an international right to abortion, even in regions with the most permissive abortion regimes. Third-party actors seeking to invent a new right to abortion err when interpreting key international instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Rome Statute, and the International Conference on Population and Development. The clear language in those documents defies any attempt to repurpose them to create an international human right to abortion.
     “On the other hand, provisions recognizing the unborn child as a rights-holder can be found in many international human rights instruments, including the American Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Most States choose to exercise the prerogative to protect unborn life by regulating abortion much more strictly than in the United States. Even in the minority of States that permit elective abortions, most specify a gestational limit of twelve weeks. That limit is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which allows elective abortion until fifteen weeks’ gestation, and then permits abortion only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.”
     Their conclusions were echoed by another international group, Center for Family and Human Rights (www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185123/20210728132729071_CFam Amicus Brief Filed.pdf)
     “The 2018 Mississippi Gestational Age Act banning most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, when the child in utero is known to suffer pain from common abortion procedures, is fully consistent with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States, which presumptively protects the right to life of children in the womb (hereinafter, the “Covenant”), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. EXEC. DOC. E, 95-2 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976), as well as other human rights commitments and obligations of the United States.
     “A careful reading of the text and history of the Covenant reveals that children in the womb were never excluded from the right to life, and that, more broadly, international law does not establish a human right to abortion in any circumstance, either through treaty obligation or by custom....
     “Treaty law is the supreme Law of the Land and the Court has a constitutional responsibility to declare what the law is. The Court should make a finding of law that children in the womb are not excluded from the right to life under the Covenant, given the plain meaning of the text of the Covenant when it was ratified by the U.S., the interpretation of the Covenant by the Executive branch, and its implementation by other States who are party to the treaty, therefore, laws to protect children in the womb from being arbitrarily deprived of their right to life, regardless of viability, are consistent with the international human rights obligations of the United States.”
↑ More about “No state can keep abortion legal...even the lawyer for the abortionists agreed.”
     Here is the excerpt from Roe’s Oral Arguments where the lawyer for the baby killers agreed that no state can keep abortion legal once the fact is established that babies of humans are humans from fertilization:
     Justice Stewart: Well, if – if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have an almost impossible case here, would you not?
     Mrs Weddington, the attorney for baby killers: (Laughing) I would have a very difficult case.
     Here is the paragraph in the Roe ruling that refers to the admission of the baby killers’ lawyer:
     “ ‘[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....”
     This is the “collapse clause” in Roe which makes the fact that babies of humans are humans not only relevant, but dispositive (this fact alone requires outlawing of abortion in every state, without any further evidence or law). Roe’s main holding was overturned, but this holding has never been disputed, and it is just as obvious (“of course”) today as it was 50 years ago.
     Because reality matters. Evidence matters. Facts matter.
     The following arguments were made in the Amicus Brief filed in Dobbs by Illinois Right to Life. These facts were raised to demand overturn of Roe. But these facts demand more: the end of legal abortion in every state:
In Roe, the Court based its “viability” standard on: (a) lack of a scientific consensus on when human life begins... It recognized that if a human fetus is a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the case for unrestricted abortion would be untenable “for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Id. at 157.

...Thus, in Roe, the Court’s decision was based on its stated inability to locate in the record a scientific or legal basis for the humanity or personhood of the fetus, and the detriments posed by pregnancy and child-rearing. However, these conditions no longer prevail...

...Roe’s recognition of a right to abort a previable pregnancy rests on the belief that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person. [While Dobbs’ passing to states the power to legalize baby slaughter rests on ignoring the extinguishing of the life of a human person.] That belief [and that “scrupulous neutrality” about infanticide] is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus.

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. 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 [and legal abortion] of its factual and legal underpinnings....

Illinois Right to Life

     If there are 39 witnesses to a murder, should a prosecutor bring forward only one? But legislatures have supported abortion bans with only their own testimony in their Findings. No 37 other states. No Congress. No thousands of uncontradicted expert witnesses. No dozens of juries. Only a trace of the overwhelming evidence for the claim that constitutionally protected “life begins” at fertilization.
     For as long as prolifers do not justify their restrictions of abortion with the full range of evidence available from all states, the readiness of “blue states” to support baby murder will seem to “cancel” the laws against it in “red states”, as if the clash is between competing opinions about “when life begins”. It needs to be clarified that the consensus of all states that have taken a position is that protectable “life begins” at fertilization, and the only clash is between those who are horrified by these murders and those who don’t care.
     The premise of Roe is its statement of a fact that might arguably in the past have been reasonable, but it certainly is not now: that “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer...[to] the difficult question of when [constitutionally protectable human] life begins.” So therefore “We need not resolve” the question!
     49½ years later, Dobbs v. Jackson said almost the same stupid thing, with a lot less grounds for such breathtaking ignorance:
     “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”
     Babies need grownups to set facts before courts that will wean them off their apathy about mass murder.
↑ More about “For other public issues, division is over facts.”
     Climate Change activists treat it as an emergency which is significantly affected by human activity. Their opponents say climate change is in fact no emergency, and even if it were, human activity has negligible impact on it. Both sides rely on “science”. (Of course pollution harms our health and quality of life, especially in the locality of the pollution, but most of that doesn’t measurably affect climate.)
     CRT controversy is entirely over facts. A very different set of facts of American history competes sometimes violently with the
     Immigration policy is a tug of war between claims of groups like NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies that so much immigration drives up prices, drives down wages, destroys national security, etc. and peer-reviewed economics studies claiming slight economic benefit to citizens at most levels, from a slight increase in immigration.
     Division over covid was all about facts. Masks work, no they don’t. Vaccines save lives, no they cause millions of “excess deaths”.
     Can boys who want to be girls join girls sports team and compete fairly? Concern for Biblical morality is in the background, but the public arguing is over the factual differences between boy and girl bodies, and how much of that is equalized by drugs and surgeries.
     Legalization of marijuana starts and sputters as facts emerge and are alleged about the impact on crime, auto accidents, on the health of users, and on the impact on holding down a job, which affects the whole economy.
↑ More about “Disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and those who don't care about facts.”
     See Finding #2.
     Abortion controversy knows no comparable issue-driving dispute over whether babies of humans are real humans. There are practical difficulties in writing a “life of the mother” exception that will leave doctors free to save mothers who are truly endangered by their pregnancies without creating a loophole which babykillers will exploit, but there is no factual controversy about the full humanity of both mothers and their babies.
     The fact is that there is no disagreement over the facts about preborn human life. The division is between authorities who rule babies are people, and courts and baby killers who say they don’t care about the facts. That should be very persuasive to simply point that out, both to the public and in court. The result we should expect is for courts to outlaw abortion, and for the vast majority of the public to become revolted by baby murders.
     Especially to the extent prolifers and lawmakers publicly acknowledge the love and guidance of God, the deeper part of the Bible- and Constitution-based strategy laid out later in this book.
     And most especially if Bible believers study and support the transfer of rights protection from courts to Congress, as laid out in the 14th Amendment, Section 5, as explained by Justice Clarence Thomas in several dissents and concurrences, including in Dobbs v. Jackson, and reviewed later in this book with the assistance of several Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs.
     Unfortunately prolife legislatures have not cited this overwhelming evidence in court. Some litigants cite the expertise of new authorities that have not yet been tested in court, but not the tested evidence. This is a powerful resource that prolifers should use. In both kinds of courts.
↑ More about "Courts that won’t address the facts that...necessitate a law...has no legitimate jurisdiction to review that law."
     Thus courts have no business reviewing abortion laws, for as long as they refuse to address the irrefutable evidence that babies of people are people. Such a court’s only legitimate business is to enforce them.
     But is that what Dobbs v. Jackson has already done? Hasn’t SCOTUS gotten out of the abortion business and allowed states to outlaw abortion as thoroughly as their voters will permit?
     Maybe SCOTUS will stay out of the way of saving lives. We should not assume they will stay out of the way when “life of the mother” exceptions come before them, where the right of mothers to live is not balanced by the right of babies to live because states are still not irrefutably establishing the full humanity of babies, while also not clearly defining the degree of danger to a mother where the doctor may remove the child without legal consequences.
     Meanwhile state courts, even in prolife states, remain solidly in the way of saving lives, defying Dobbs which said courts should not block the choice of voters. Yet neither will state courts address the fact which justifies abortion restrictions: babies are people. Nor will state lawmakers, so far as I have read, and so far as my own conversations with lawmakers have accomplished, make that a central defense. Those courts have no business blocking prolife laws for as long as they dodge the fact which demands them.
     Now let’s consider longer range strategy, of how to get courts to outlaw abortion even in “blue states” (where abortion-supporting Democrats hold the majority). Blue state courts won’t have any prolife laws to overturn. How can a case even be brought into a “blue state” court?
     One possible way to get courts to outlaw abortion in blue states is for a red state to sue a blue state for slaughtering its citizens. A controversy between states goes directly to SCOTUS, as provided in the Constitution.
     Another way would be if blue states still try to prosecute life savers for “sidewalk counseling” or for blocking doors, and the defendants raise these defenses. Prolife defendants have consistently made the humanity of babies central to their defense, but the arguments here are stronger than I have seen raised in any court.
     The way provided in the Constitution is that courts stay out of deciding which humans get to murder and which must be slaughtered, but let Congress enact a “remedial” law (not a “substantive” law) and demand courts exercise their constitutional role of enforcing it.
     Short of that, an indirect way abortion would be outlawed even in blue states through these arguments is simply that as they prevail in red states, they will educate lawmakers, judges, and the public, until hearts soften and murder becomes unthinkable again, and the Democrat party retires to “the ash heap of history”.
     The same principles apply to freedom of religious expression which courts outlaw, calling it “establishment of religion”. Statements that are true should never be prosecuted, no matter how much they favor the Bible. Courts have no business challenging Christian expression if they are unwilling to investigate evidence of whether the Bible is true, and whether the human statements based on the Bible are true.
     Will this open the floodgates to pagan expression?
     No, if the argument is made in court that the principles of the Bible are the outline of American law and freedoms, that no other religion or philosophy supports the fundamentals of our laws and freedoms, and that our government has a legitimate government interest in facilitating support for its own existence and for avoiding support for ideologies hostile to our laws and freedoms.
     More about this in the final section of this book, complete with SCOTUS precedents, Justice Thomas dissents, and nuggets from the 140 Amici who filed briefs in Dobbs v. Jackson.
     This is not a call for government censorship, but for driving hostile ideologies out of schools and subsidies, and making Freedom’s enemies pay for their own attacks.
     It will not close down discussion, but open the American Freedom forum wide, where Christians will be free to defend themselves and the public – and our children in public schools – will hear both sides. Maybe Christians will finally turn their gatherings into their own media as the Bible calls for.

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.

Finding #2: 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 38 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]

^[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

↑ More about “US. v. Caroline Products”
     US. v. Caroline adds that the evidence in support of a law doesn’t have to be overwhelming: “....the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. ...But by their very nature such inquiries, where the legislative judgment is drawn in question, must be restricted to the issue whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it.” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938)
     This is a fair explanation of the “rational basis” test by which courts evaluate laws that restrict non-fundamental rights. When rights are called “fundamental”, (an arbitrary classification according to Justice Thomas’ quotes later in this book), then “strict scrutiny” is the courtroom standard, by which judges are more skeptical of claims made about facts by court-recognized fact finders. Roe ruled that abortion is a “fundamental” right in 1973, but it lost that status in 1982 with Casey, and Dobbs blew away the last traces of it.
     Not that the evidence of court recognized fact finders, the power of legislative findings, and the general power of laws to shape court rulings, should be necessary to inform judges as if they were otherwise helplessly ignorant. The fact that this evidence and argument has not been before the Supreme Court does not excuse justices for ruling as if they had never heard it.
     True, it is considered unethical for judges to investigate facts on their own; they should normally limit their review of facts to those facts presented by the parties to the case, where the other side has an opportunity to respond. And no state law which has been reviewed by SCOTUS has asked for abortion to be outlawed because it murders little humans, so technically their ignorance, breathtaking as it is, can be excused.
     But even without formal presentations of this evidence, the fact that little people are still people falls under “common knowledge”, of which judges frequently, and quite ethically, “take judicial notice”.
     Besides, this kind of evidence has been presented in court – in cases which the Supreme Court chose not to hear. And even those cases which SCOTUS turned down placed legal briefs in the record which were read by at least some of the clerks of the justices.
     So the justices are not that innocent. Their ignorance is willful.
     Still, prolifers share some of the blame for tiptoeing around Casey so long. Casey told states that no abortion restriction could be “constitutional” that had, for any part of its purpose, the reduction of abortion. Casey barred any restriction that “has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Planned Parenthood v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992)
     Thus, while lawmakers told prolife voters their laws were designed to reduce abortion as much as courts would let them, their argument in court avoided any suggestion that babies of people are people, in order to cover up their crime of caring.
     Thus states deliberately kept evidence out of court that babies of people are people, for most of abortion’s half century. And again, judges think it is unethical to rule according to evidence submitted by neither party to a case. (They way they ruled in Roe.)
     Yet even today, after Casey is overturned and states are specifically invited by SCOTUS to outlaw abortion is much as voters will permit, I still read courtroom defenses that don’t mention the reason for outlawing abortion: that babies are people, which makes abortion murder. Why? Is it just 30 years of Casey-inspired habit?
↑ More about “ 'Unborn victims of violence laws of 38 states...[have survived] many challenges"
     Wikipedia tells us that not only have these laws been challenged many times in court and have always survived, (challenges “...have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts”), but also that abortionists and Democrats don’t quite understand how legal abortion has been able to survive the passage of these laws! They can hardly believe their good fortune, that even though these laws establish the unborn as “14th Amendment ‘persons’”, prolifers have still not cited them in court in support of outlawing abortion. Here is the Wikipedia excerpt:
     The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most abortion-rights organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person", then they would have a constitutional right to life.1 The laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).2 Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.3
     Senator John Kerry, who was a main opponent of President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."4
     Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade.5
     A principle that allows language in law to not conflict with Roe, which logically should trigger Roe's "collapse" clause, was explained in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Until such language becomes the basis for laws that specify penalties for abortion, the issue is not even before the court, of whether or not such language conflicts with Roe, and if so, which should be struck down.6
     Representative Jerrold Nadler made a statement in voicing his opposition to a proposed federal law giving prenatal entities certain legal rights. The bill appears to contradict an important premise behind the constitutional right to seek an abortion: prenatal entities are not persons.7 [2]
     Footnotes to this Wikipedia excerpt:
     1 Roe v. Wade's collapse clause says: “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
     2 State Homicide Laws that recognize unborn victims: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
     3 Constitutional Challenges to State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws. http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/statechallenges.html
     4 Fisher, Brian E. (2014). Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women. New York, NY: Morgan James Publishing. pp. 16. ISBN 9781614488415. https://archive.org/details/abortionultimate0000fish
     5 “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Roe v. Wade – Read what these supporters of legal abortion say about ‘fetal homicide’ laws” (PDF). National Right to Life Committee. 2004-02-02. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-04-20. Retrieved 2019-10-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20130420160514/http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/RoeSupportersSpeakUVVA.pdf
     6 “...until those courts have applied the...state's view of when life begins...to restrict appellees' [abortionists'] activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Sandra Day O'Connor added in a concurrence, “When the constitutional invalidity of a State's abortion statute actually turns upon the constitutional validity of Roe, there will be time enough to reexamine Roe, and to do so carefully.”
     7 Alongi, April (2008-09-01). “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act and its Impact on Reproductive Rights”. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice. 15 (1): 285 – via Scholarly Commons. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol15/iss1/11
     Roe is officially overturned anyway, of course. But it may be worth establishing that there is nothing in its rubble, or anywhere else, that could support any undermining of the fact-finding authority of “unborn victims of violence” laws to establish anything less than the full humanty/personhood of the unborn. If you still wonder if the way Roe minimized this evidence makes sense, the remainder of this Note is for you.
     Roe said such laws don’t prove lawmakers actually think babies are people: they probably just treat the baby’s death as a loss the way you would treat the loss of a dirt bike. Or of a puppy:
“...some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. ...In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973)

     An example of such a lawsuit occurred just three months before the Roe ruling. A car was hit by a Greyhound bus, killing a mother and her 8-1/2 month unborn child. www.masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass354.html. The administrator of their estate sued Greyhound for “wrongful death” of a human being.
     Roe’s dismissal of evidence like that doesn’t work for today’s “unborn victims of violence” laws for two reasons:
     (1) 28 of the 38 states explicitly state that the premise of their law is the humanity/personhood of the unborn – while saying nothing about the interests of the parents, and
     (2) Roe was talking about parents bringing civil lawsuits against people whose negligence had caused the deaths of their unborn children, in which case the parents’ interest was indeed a factor. But unborn victims of violence laws are different: they are criminal charges, brought by county or state prosecutors, to vindicate the states’ interest in protecting life, without asking the parents for permission. And the penalties for killing an unborn baby are the same in 38 states as the penalties for killing the mother. This is not like the parents’ interest in the loss of some inanimate object, like a refrigerator. Or a dog.
↑ More about “ 15 U.S. Senators served on the U.S. Supreme Court” https://www.senate.gov/senators/ Supreme_Court.htm
     Congress approves Supreme Court justices. Not only does the Constitution give Congress that power, but Congress is well qualified: it contains many lawyers, many of whom qualify as constitutional scholars. At least that is what presidents have often thought, since 15 U.S. Senators served on the U.S. Supreme Court, not counting those nominated but not approved by the Senate. An example of a qualified Senator today is Ted Cruz, Republican from Texas, who as Texas Attorney General successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Cruz is on a “short list” of Supreme Court candidates published July 22, 2023 by presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-presidential-hopeful-ramaswamy-puts-ted-cruz-and-mike-lee-on-his-supreme-court-list-69655939
     Lawmakers are also elected from the same populations that supply jurors.
     So now that Congress and 38 states rule that all unborn babies are fully human from fertilization, their ruling on that fact carries at least as much legal weight as what the Supreme Court has ruled. Especially since the Supreme Court declines to rule:
     "(22 State Policy Organizations amicus brief filed in Dobbs:) The positivistic [materialistic – the belief that only physical things are real] reduction of persons represented by the Court’s abortion decisions has leavened the law in a way that curtails historic State policies grounded in deference to a given human nature and the common law rights that correspond to that nature.
     "By purporting to leave the question of the meaning of persons in the Fourteenth Amendment unanswered, this Court’s holdings requiring States to abandon common and natural law commitments have effectively ratified a diminished view of the human person in law. These holdings have foisted upon the States a denatured anthropological model that prohibits them from ascribing objective meaning, dignity, and value to vulnerable persons.
     "The severe distortion of the human person in constitutional caselaw invites systemic effects well beyond the troubled context of abortion. If constitutional precept commands States to treat nascent human life as vacant of meaning and value apart from subjective individual determination or Court authorization, concurrently placed in doubt is the historic understanding of law as constrained by a reality prior to and beyond its coercive impositions. A national abortion-enablement policy is mournful in itself, but does not keep to itself. It corrodes the law altogether. [www.supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185004/20210727112957999_Dobbs Amici brief_FPC_ 7.23.21.pdf]
     The pretense that judges can’t tell if babies of humans are humans, maintained by Roe and retained by Dobbs, is a sophistry no longer believable if it ever was. When judges profess greater ignorance than that of children, they should not claim to know better than state legislatures. Nathan Schlueter said nearly the same thing in a way that sounds more scholarly: “We cannot afford to feign skepticism about the personhood of unborn children any more than an earlier age could afford to feign skepticism about the personhood of African-Americans.”
     What makes that sophistry as legally absurd as it is spiritually blasphemous is that it plays games with reality. Blacks are people with souls equally loved by God with all other souls; so are babies. To imagine otherwise is as specious as telling the property tax collector that your house is actually a tent. A house is not a tent, and a person is not 3/5 of a person; nor is a person only “potential life”. Nor can either slavery or murder be left for voters to decide whether to keep legal.
     Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown, in their amicus in Dobbs, wrote:
     "The sophistry at the heart of Roe is that the beginning of human life was ever a subject for speculation ...There was no doubt at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment as to whether the common definition of “person” included preborn persons. One-hundred and fifty years since, medical science has overwhelmingly confirmed this commonly understood inclusion of preborn persons in legal personhood. ...no other so-called constitutional right involves the “the purposeful termination of a potential life.” Yet even in Harris, we see the poison of Roe in the qualifier “potential.” ...By choosing Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968) as the test for legal personhood, this Court can reach a new milestone in the advancement of human rights. ...The Court started from the premise that “illegitimate children are not ‘nonpersons,’” insofar as they are “humans, live, and have their being.” Levy 391 U.S. at 70 (emphasis added). Thus all children who 1)are human, 2) are living, and 3) are in being, are “clearly” persons under the Equal Protection Clause." [www.supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185063/20210727174713396_FINAL_Brown_ Weiskopf_Dobbs_Amicus.pdf]
     “Trust” and “Congress” aren’t a perfect fit, but compared to public trust in other human authorities it ranks high, while trust in juries and in experts ranks higher. There is more public scrutiny of the trustworthiness of political authorities more than that of authorities on other subjects because what political authorities rule affects more of us more.
     But the willingness of most of society to live by most of the rules imposed by our government is an important measure of society’s trust in its authorities to create rules which mostly conform to reality. Which in turn is an important measure of society’s trust in the expertise of its authorities to grasp reality to a reasonable level.
↑ More about "Juries (Become Authorities)"
     The reason juries can “establish” these truths with the kind of authority that is as acceptable to whole societies as other human authorities is that unlike public opinion surveys or petitions, which are normally not admissible evidence of facts in court because popular uninformed opinion is a less stable reservoir of justice, we test jurors for impartiality and educate them with the most qualified expert witnesses we can find.
     And the education of jurors does not end with a 500 word article. It continues until both sides run out of evidence. Which can take all day, all week, or even all year. Juries contribute impartiality, and commitment to study as long as necessary, to our search for Truth.
     Juries are also less likely to be swayed by scholarly sounding gaslighting. Where there is gaslighting, the opposing attorney is likely to alert jurors to it. And if a legal theory seems seems irrefutable but makes no sense, or seems fundamentally unfair, juries are not bound by law to endorse it.
     Juries are sometimes bolder than judges and lawyers to follow the obvious when a judge’s application of the law doesn’t fit the facts or a precedent has an erroneous factual premise.
     Unfortunately when states defend their abortion restrictions in court, they have not, so far, cited the consensus of juries in those few early abortion prevention trials in which judges allowed juries to hear the Necessity Defense (the defendants’ action was necessary in order to save lives) and juries acquitted because the defendants were saving lives. This is a powerful resource which prolifers need to use. In both kinds of courts - of Law, and of Public Opinion.
↑ More about “Expert Witnesses are scrutinized by the other side’s experts”
     That is a standard that news reporters make a show of meeting, but reporters will (1) talk to a source for an hour and select maybe two sentences for a quote, (2) take the quote as far out of context as necessary to suit the prejudices of the reporter, (3) get the quote wrong, (4) make no public record available of all that was said so readers can double check the accuracy of the report, and (5) cram all that into 300-1,000 words.
     News reporters are kind of low on the trust scale, especially after revelations of their cooperation with government censors over recent years, yet are high enough that millions still turn to them to understand the world around them. Expert witnesses rank higher, because they are held to higher standards. Their usual audiences are other experts who can’t be easily fooled
     In abortion prevention trials, (where people were prosecuted for trying to save lives by preventing abortion, usually by blocking doors so mothers couldn’t enter to murder their babies), expert witnesses testified that fully human life begins from the first minute, and were never refuted.
     But confusing themselves for news reporters, judges censored the expert witnesses, not allowing the juries to hear them, but only letting them testify after sending the jury to another room. Technically, however, they created a public record; a Court Reporter took notes and will convert it into a readable transcript – for several hundred dollars if the testimony isn’t long.
     The fact that expert witnesses in abortion prevention trials were never refuted is breathtaking considering that abortionists invest billions in legally attacking prolifers, demonstrating their extremely high motivation to refute prolifers in court to the fullest extent possible. In normal trials, if a litigant argues that the opposing evidence is irrelevant, he will also bring in contrary evidence to show the opposing evidence is also wrong, in case the judge doesn’t agree that it is irrelevant. But in abortion prevention trials the fact that human babies are people was dismissed as irrelevant, while the accuracy of the fact was for all practical purposes conceded, being left unchallenged. Indeed, who could refute it?
     Judges. Individual judges who have taken a position, are another category of court-recognized fact finders who agree babies are people.
     One reason judges probably have more credibility than news reporters is they at least write a summary of the proceedings, reporting the positions of both sides, in way more detail than news reports. Roe was 65 pages. And anyone can get copies of the legal briefs filed, and if they are rich enough, a transcript of the proceedings. At least records exist, unlike news reporter interviews. (As opposed to talk show guests.)
     In the past judges’ rulings were available to anyone by going to a law library, while the briefs of the parties, and the amicus briefs, were unavailable to the public. That gave judges’ version of cases the only version the public saw. Before computers, there was only one paper copy of each record, in lower courts. The public was allowed to inspect them there in the recorder’s office, but not to remove them. Although prosecutors could take them out of the office. One prosecutor actually admitted in court that he destroyed records in my friend’s file to deny him the opportunity to seek relief. He was not punished.
     Rulings are much easier today to find online, but now SCOTUS makes the entire docket (record) available online, and lower courts are moving in that direction.
     Today the Polk County Courthouse has docket filings on its computers, which the public can view, and can print off for a charge.
     When the Sixth Amendment “right to counsel” was added to our Constitution, hiring on as a human copying machine for a lawyer was one of the ways people studied law to become lawyers.
     Am I rambling?
↑ More about “court-recognized fact finders are...respected in...the Court of Public Opinion.”
     Juries, 2023, August 28: “Nearly 60% of Americans say they have at least a fair amount of trust in juries, according to a new survey — higher than for any other group in the judicial system. But that trust may soon be put to the test, as former President Donald Trump appears to be headed for multiple trials in the coming year. When asked specifically about Trump’s upcoming trials, a majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — said they did not think the courts would be able to seat impartial jurors.” - New York Times, Americans still trust juries
     News reporters, 2021, October 8: “36 percent of survey respondents say they trust the press to report the news fully, fairly, and accurately (down from 40 percent who said the same last year)....29 percent have ‘not very much’ trust in media and 34 percent ‘none at all.’ ” Gallup poll, reported in Reason, Trust in media...near record lows
     Judges, 2022, September 29: “Trust in the judicial branch of the federal government has fallen by 20% since 2021.... The poll showed that only 47 % of respondents expressed ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of trust in the judicial branch....(Trust among) Democrats...fell from 50% in 2021 to 25% in 2022, while independents’ trust fell by 5% to 46%. Republicans, by contrast, saw their confidence in the judiciary rise to 67%....In 2000, during the Bush v. Gore case about that year’s presidential election, trust in the judiciary was at 75%, a full 28% higher than it is currently.”
     As for the Supreme Court, “58% disapproved of their performance, a record high, while 40% approved, a record low.” Republican confidence in SCOTUS got a boost from Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “Additionally, the judiciary has reversed several policy initiatives by the Biden administration. These include the federal mandate to wear masks on transportation (Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden) and the federal vaccine mandate on private businesses (NFIB v. OSHA). - Gallup.com, Trust in judicial branch sinks to new low
     State Legislatures & Governors, 2018, September: The first percentage is the trust level among whites; the second is that among blacks: state legislature, 47/40%; governor, 48/39%; state courts, 57/42%; local police, 70/39%; SCOTUS, 56/44%; Congress, 22/31%; President, 40/2%! - Black Trust in U.S. Legislatures, by Earnest Dupree III and John R. Hibbing, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Online Library

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.

Finding #3. The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS

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

But SCOTUS never ruled babies Non-Persons “as a Matter of Law”, as lower courts allege. ^[2]

Roe made that fact not only relevant, but dispositive with a holding which no court has disputed even though Roe’s main holding was overturned: ^[3] “[Prolifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment....If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortionist’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state]. The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded as much....” ^[4]

Dobbs explicitly left this statement of the obvious untouched, saying “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....” ^[5]

Dobbs did not say babies aren’t people. Dobbs did not say voters should still decide whether babies can be murdered in the face of proof that babies are in fact people. ^[6]

Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that “establishment” of this fact, independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment, ^[7] dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime. ^[8]

This established fact is as relevant today as when Roe said “of course” it is. This established fact is not disestablished by any judge’s alleged inability to understand it.9 ^[9]

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

If only those legally recognized as “persons” were people, slavery could still be legal and the 14th Amendment would mean nothing. Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human. ^[11]

The Amendment protects those who are IN FACT people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people “as a matter of law”. ^[12]

FOOTNOTES

↑ More about “Dobbs dodged whether human babies are people.”
     SCOTUS only reviewed cases that did not raise “babies are people” as a reason to outlaw abortion, beginning with Doe v. Israel, 1973, (in which Rhode Island raised that defense but SCOTUS declined to hear the case – “cert denied”) and ending with Dobbs v. Jackson, 2022, in which Mississippi’s Attorney General never gave that as a reason to overturn Roe.
     Mississippi said babies are real people, but deliberately refused to give that as a reason for outlawing their extermination in every state.
     Although Mississippi’s lawmakers added evidence of the humanity of babies in their Findings of Facts, the brief of the Attorney General gave every other reason for overturning Roe, and explicitly denied, in oral arguments, that SCOTUS should outlaw baby killing (in every state).
     Outlawing baby murder (in every state) wasn’t even considered in oral arguments. Not in the December 1, 2021 oral arguments did any justice entertain such a radical idea as outlawing baby murder – nor did Mississippi’s Attorney General, even after the AG boldly said, and no one disagreed: abortion is “the purposeful termination of a human life”, “Roe and Casey...have no basis in the Constitution. They...adopt a right that purposefully leads to the termination of now millions of human lives.” “I think this Court in Gonzales pretty clearly recognized that before viability, we are talking, with unborn life, with a human organism.” Justice Alito even added, “the fetus has an interest in having a life”. (Which is weaker than had he said “preborn babies have a fundamental right to life.”)
     And yet when Justice Kavanaugh asked the AG, “And to be clear, you're not arguing that the Court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this Court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion as I understand it, correct?” the AG answered, “Correct, Your Honor.”
     Dobbs explicitly acknowledged the central issue, and immediately explicitly declined to address it:
There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was instead spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being. Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point....One may disagree with this belief (and our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests), but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith of abortion opponents. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850 (“Men and women of good conscience can disagree . . . about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stage”). DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265

     Indeed this same judicial willful blindness to the only issue that really matters distinguished Roe and Casey, just as Dobbs reports – and not just the majority opinion but even the dissents of the conservatives! Here is Scalia's, White's, and Thomas’s dissent in Casey, followed by a statement from Roe:

Casey dissent: The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its “balancing” [between women’s “privacy” and “potential life”] is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1992) (Concurrence/dissent of Scalia, White, Thomas)

Roe: “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer...[to] the difficult question of when [constitutionally protectable human] life begins.” So therefore “We need not resolve” the question!... “[Prolifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortionist’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th]Amendment. The [abortionist] conceded as much on reargument.

;“...we would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion...if [we had known that] the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.”

     What fact can be more central to an abortion case, than that babies are people, which makes killing them murder? Yet for 50 years and still counting, even SCOTUS’ most conservative justices seem determined, if not personally, ethically, and religiously invested, in ignoring that “elephant in the room”.
     They are not alone: the same willful blindness reigns in the Court of Public Opinion. And even in many churches.
     Therefore this obstacle to saving lives needs to be taken seriously. Satan has set up headquarters there. Every effort must be taken by legislatures to make “it’s a baby” the central, inescapable issue in court, and Findings of Facts must not only prove clear and irrefutable to judges but just as clear and irrefutable in the Court of Public Opinion.
     SCOTUS was never challenged (in any case it took) to see babies as people. From a post at Personhood.org: “Since Roe, the Supreme Court has not been presented with a challenge concerning the legal status of the personhood of an unborn human being (as the reason to outlaw abortion) . Instead, the cases have centered on a multitude of state regulations that are designed to sway a woman’s choice, or chill a physician’s willingness to provide abortion services.” (https://personhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lugosi-The-Constitutionality-of-Personhood.pdf) Well, that’s almost true. SCOTUS has been presented with such cases, but has declined to hear them.
     I don’t know if any state law presented such a case, since Rhode Island in 1973.
     So why? Why have state legislatures dodged “it’s a baby” in their prolife laws, just as rigorously as SCOTUS ignores that central issue?
     The most plausible answer I can think of for legal abortion’s first 19 years was the sophistry of Federal Judge Pettine’s smackdown of Rhode Island’s 1973 abortion ban. More details later, but he characterized Roe as saying it didn’t matter if babies are in fact people, because Roe made babies non-people “as a matter of law”. As a later Statement of Fact demonstrates, that sophistry the opposite of what Roe said, and the opposite of what the 14th Amendment provides. But in all those years I am unaware of a challenge to that sophistry.
     Casey established an additional reason for states to not dare mention the “Elephant in the Womb”. Er, room. Casey, 1992, said no state law can “substantially” restrict abortion, OR have for its purpose ANY reduction of abortion. That intimidated prolife states into crafting prolife laws which did NOT substantially reduce abortion, and which were justified by some other “legitimate government purpose” than saving lives. For example, keeping the murder rooms clean, keeping an accurate count of the number of murders, or informing moms that they were about to become murderers.
     Those “legitimate government purposes” became SCOTUS-approved. But not “saving lives”. So evidence that stopping the slaughter of babies was irrelevant; in fact, fatal to a defense, since it would have betrayed that part of the state’s purpose was to reduce the murders!
     An example of how far states went to accommodate Casey was Iowa’s heartbeat bill. Prolifers were told it would eliminate almost all abortions since the age where a heartbeat is detectable is almost the age where a mom knows she has a baby. But in district court, obviously trying to dodge Casey, attorney Martin Cannon actually told the judge the law would not stop one single abortion; it would merely pressure mothers to hurry up and find out whether they are pregnant so they can murder their babies before we are sure they are “persons”! (See Iowa Heartbeat Arguments)
     Rhode Island in 1973. Since Roe had alleged ignorance about the unborn because “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense”, the Rhode Island legislature offered to school the Court.
     Texas AG Wade had said human babies are people, but it wasn’t explicit in Texas law. It was only a courtroom argument of an Attorney General. So Rhode Island enacted that recognition in law, so SCOTUS would know. Rhode Island’s law had a strong statement that unborn babies are persons, and strong criminal penalties for aborting them. Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193 (1973). Doe v. Israel, 1 Cir., 1973, 482 F.2d 156. SCOTUS declined to hear the case. Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993.
     Federal Judge Pettine ruled, “The Rhode Island legislature apparently read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade to leave open the question of when life begins and the constitutional consequences [**12] thereof.” Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1199 (1973)
     Pettine didn’t just respond “well, that’s a little more of the ‘establishment’ courts will need before we outlaw abortion again, but that’s still not enough.” He went far beyond SCOTUS, saying all the evidence in the world was irrelevant:
     “I neither summarize nor make any findings of fact as to their testimony [about whether unborn babies of human mothers are humans/persons]. To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. ... I find it all irrelevant....” Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1197
     Judge Pettine, and he wasn’t alone, thought it irrelevant that human babies are in fact people, even though “of course”, to use Roe’s phrase, that fact makes killing them legally recognizable as murder.
     If Roe didn’t treat Life as “a question of fact”, but of law, how did doctors and preachers become more qualified to “answer” the “question”, according to Roe, than SCOTUS? Roe said the court was “in no position to speculate as to the answer” because, supposedly, doctors and preachers don’t agree, not that the answer was irrelevant. Roe said the answer was not only relevant, it was dispositive: once “established”, it must “of course” end legal abortion.
     Doe continues: “It is true that the Court in Wade and Bolton did not attempt to decide the point ‘when human life begins.’ No reading of the opinions, however, can be thought to empower the Rhode Island legislature [alone] to ‘defin[e] some creature as an unborn child, to be a human being and a person from the moment of its conception.’” Doe v. Israel
     Legislatures establish facts. Since when does a state legislature need SCOTUS to “empower” them to establish facts? Normally courts respect findings of facts by legislatures. See Statement of Facts #2. Doe continues: “Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton can [not] be nullified by the simple device of a legislative declaration or presumptions contrary to the court's holding.” Doe v. Israel
     “Device”? Correction of a precedent’s “erroneous factual premise” officially removes its Stare Decisis protection. Normally.
     Roe’s holding had a condition. Rhode Island met it. Roe’s holding was premised on Roe’s version of history in which no court-recognized legal authority had established precisely the fact which Rhode Island stepped forward to establish. That is, Roe put an implied condition on its holding: that no future authority, such as a legislature, would do what Rhode Island did.
     The Rhode Island legislature is a court-recognized finder of facts. The only thing Roe didn’t clarify was how much establishment, by how many fact finders, was “enough” establishment to satisfy the court.
     But now that issue is gone. There can be no more “establishment” of any fact than the uncontested consensus of every court-recognized fact finder that took a position, in all five categories of court-recognized fact finders. If Roe was correct, that “establishment” was possible, then “establishment” has been accomplished. If the unanimous – uncontested – finding of every court-recognized fact-finder is not enough “establishment” for the court to know a fact, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.
     This challenge is not just to judges. It is to anyone who thinks abortion ought to remain legal.
     I challenge them to squarely address the easily documented evidence that every American legal authority that has ruled on “when human life begins” has ruled that Life begins “at the beginning”, which makes babies as fully human as blacks were two centuries ago, which makes killing babies legally recognizable as murder, which no state can be allowed to legalize any more than any state can legalize slavery.
↑ More about “Lower courts said Roe made babies non-persons ‘as a matter of law’, (making the fact that babies are people ‘irrelevant’!)”
     State appellate precedents falsely insist SCOTUS made babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”, making “when life [in fact] begins” irrelevant, so therefore evidence that babies are real people should not even be allowed in court, in trials of prolifers charged with blocking the doors of baby killers to save the lives of babies being brought in to be murdered. Juries must judge only whether doors were blocked, and ignore whether lives were saved.
     It began in 1973 with Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193: “To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. ... I find it all irrelevant....” (See previous footnote.)
     Whatever happened to “trial by jury”?
     This became the excuse for judges to not even let juries – the official “finders of facts” in jury trials – hear evidence in thousands of abortion prevention trials about the only fact that mattered: that the unborn babies saved by blocking abortionist doors were in fact people. See City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993), in which the Kansas Supreme Court reviews several other state supreme court precedents. (For 7 pages of my analysis of "Errors in abortion prevention cases", especially featuring Tilson, see Appendix F, page 84 of my book "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".)
     When defendants argued in court that it was “necessary” to commit the lesser harm of trespassing by sitting in front of the killing doors to prevent the greater harm of baby killing, courts asked how baby killing could be legally recognizable as harmful at all, being a “constitutional right”?
     Courts in door blocking cases borrowed Judge Pettine’s trick of accusing Roe of making the issue “a matter of law”, which makes the FACT that babies are people “irrelevant”. Therefore juries, the official “Finders Of Facts”, weren’t allowed to even know about the Necessity Defense, even though that defense was usually the only defense in such cases, based on the only contested fact, and supposedly defendants have a right to “trial by jury”. How is it a “trial by jury” when the judge decides the only contested issue of a trial and doesn’t even allow the jury to know the defendant’s only defense? Even when the only contested issue is about a fact? (See my entertaining video about this featuring humor and children, at “Trial By Jury 5-part video”, at http://saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm)
     The error: Roe never made abortion an absolute, unconditional right, immune from reality. The error in those precedents was thinking Roe made abortion an absolute constitutional right, whose factual premise could never be challenged.
     Actually an erroneous factual premise is an official exception to Stare Decisis, [the courtroom doctrine that makes future rulings mostly follow past rulings] and Roe had explicitly made “constitutional protection” of abortion subject to the “establishment” of unborn “personhood”, which Roe treated as a fact question about which the justices were “unable to speculate...at this point in the development of man’s knowledge”, which therefore was an invitation to future fact finding. Yet in tens of thousands of abortion prevention cases, the only disputed fact was whether the lives saved were of human persons, yet the Finders of Facts were not allowed to know the issue existed, nor were allowed to hear the doctors and geneticists brought in by the defendants – the expert witnesses, to testify to the fact that babies of people are genuine people. The judged ruled on the only contested fact and kept the evidence secret from the jury. Yet the charade was called “Trial by Jury”!!!
     Since Dobbs, abortion is no longer “constitutionally protected”, but SCOTUS has still not refuted the reality-denying theory that babies are nonpersons “as a matter of law”.
     Therefore these lingering lower court precedents – there are many of them – need to be addressed.
     Here are the cases reviewed in Appendix F of the book linked above, with just a single statement from each, to show their inconsistency with SCOTUS rulings:
     1. “The rationale utilized by ‘[t]he majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm which can justify illegal conduct.’” City of Wichita v. Tilson, 855 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1993).
     Finding #8 responds to this. Slavery, too, was constitutionally protected, according to the Supreme Court, and it still was as punishment for a crime in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. The way that Amendment ended slavery applies as well to babies. The fact that babies are people is what matters; what is irrelevant is legal recognition of that fact. The fact that babies are people makes killing them legally recognizable as the ultimate harm: murder, which no state can legalize, and which legally justifies almost any conduct that can stop it.
     2. “Appellants may not criminally interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights by others, and then escape punishment for their criminal conduct by asserting the defense of necessity....A pregnant woman’s decision to exercise her right under the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California to terminate a pregnancy is not and cannot be held to be a ‘significant evil.’” People v. Garziano 230 Cal. App. 3d 242, 244 (1991)
     Murder can never be a constitutional right. Saving people from murderers can never be “criminal conduct”. No mother can have any legal, much less constitutional right to murder her baby human. Roe v. Wade never said there is any constitutional right to abortion even in the face of conclusive evidence that babies are people, and even if SCOTUS is guilty of such genocide, such a ruling is unconstitutional, being in violation of the 14th Amendment which, as Roe said, protects the Right to Life of even little people.
     Lower court judges are more bloodthirsty than Roe. Roe was neutral on whether murdering babies is evil. Roe said “of course” abortion will need to be outlawed if it is “established” that babies are people. “Indeed,...we would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.” – Roe v. Wade at 159. By contrast, this lower supreme court won’t let the fact finders even know about the defense, lest we find out that human babies are people.
     In those thousands of “Rescue the babies” trials, it was a perpetual prayer and struggle to somehow communicate our defense to the jury, which judges were determined to censor. Such as saying before the judge could stop us, in front of the jury, with words that would not simply harden the jury against us, “Shouldn’t the jury be allowed to hear my defense?” Such strategies seldom if ever succeeded.
     3. “If the legislature cannot delegate a ‘veto power’ to the patient’s ... spouse .... we think it unlikely that a state court could delegate such a ‘veto power’ to strangers [the jury], to be exercised in such an obtrusive manner.” Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073, 1080 n. 15 (1981) Juries, not spouses, are court-recognized fact finders. Murder is not a “personal decision” whose legality is determined by the family of the murderer. It needs to be determined by reality.
     4. “...the ‘injury’ prevented by the acts of criminal trespass is not a legally recognized injury.” People v. Krizka, 92 IILApp.3d 288, 48 III.Dec. 141, 416 N.E.2d 36.
     The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to overturn laws which deprived genuine human people of their God-given, unalienable rights. Therefore, by definition, what was “legal” and “criminal” was made subject to rights spelled out by God. The Bible validates common sense: babies have conscious souls before as well as after birth, making them just as “human” as any judge, making abortion legally recognizable as murder. Laws which violate the Constitution and the Laws of God make any judge a criminal who enforces them.
     Remember that court quote is the judge’s excuse for not allowing the jury to even know what the defendant’s defense is. Yet The defense rests on a fact: babies of humans are humans.
     Juries are supposed to be court-recognized fact finders. Yet defendants were censored from telling juries the fact that the trial was about. How is it a “trial by jury” when a judge decides the central question of the case and strictly forbids the jury from even learning what that question is?
     In those very few trials where defendants were allowed to tell juries about the Necessity Defense, their verdict was that abortion is in fact murder. Murder is not constitutionally protected. It is not “criminal” to save lives.
     5. “Abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not a legally recognized harm, and, therefore, prevention of abortion is not a legally recognized interest to promote.” State v. Sahr, 470 N.W.2d at 191-192.
    You judges are not the fact finders in jury trials. “Trial by jury” was not created because juries are smarter than judges, but because they are more honest. And not too intimidated by ossified legal rhetoric to see the obvious.
     Not only that, but the judicial dishonesty that necessitated juries was more about law than facts, when the Magna Carta resurrected juries from the Bible. (Called “judges” in the KJV.)
     Why did you judges censor juries? Because you knew their verdict. That babies are people, which makes killing them murder, and, therefore, prevention of murder IS a legally recognized interest to promote, which righteous people have every legal right and Biblical duty to do. (Proverbs 24:10-12) The only way you could say otherwise was by taping shut the mouths of greater authorities than yourselves, who earned their greater authority by their greater honesty.
     6. “...the justification defense [is still] unavailable because abortion is lawful by virtue of the United States Constitution.” Allison v. City of Birmingham, 580 So. 2d 1377 (1991)
     See Finding #8. No reading of the Constitution can logically legalize abortion without legalizing slavery.The Constitution has to be repealed, to make abortion lawful.
     SCOTUS is not the Constitution. Any judge who can’t tell the difference between SCOTUS and the Constitution needs a transfer to traffic court.
     7. “...the defense of necessity asserted here cannot be utilized when the harm sought to be avoided (abortion) remains a constitutionally protected activity and the harm incurred (trespass) is in violation of the law.” State v. O’Brien, 784 S.W.2d 187, 192 (1989)
     This ruling violates Roe by not allowing fact-finders to “establish” what Roe said “of course” would transfer constitutional protection from baby killers to babies.
     8. “Because the harm sought to be prevented is not recognized as an injury under the law, the defense of necessity is insufficient as a matter of law and the court properly refused to allow the defendant to raise it.” State v. Clarke, 24 Conn.App. 541, 590 A.2d 468, cert. denied 219 Conn. 910, 593 A.2d 135 (1991)
     “Cert. denied” means this was appealed to the Supreme Court but the Court declined to hear it. Tens of thousands of arrests, thousands of jury trials where the “triers of facts” were not allowed to hear the only contested fact of the trial, which was a dispositive fact, and the Supreme Court refused to hear a single appeal of that wholesale violation of the constitutional right to “trial by jury”.
↑ More about (If babies are people we can’t murder them was) a holding which no court has disputed
Excerpt from Footnote #1, Finding #1 by Schluetter: “of those Justices on the Supreme Court who have urged reversing Roe , not one...attempted to make or even respond in their opinions to the unborn person interpretation.” [In other words, even though not even the most liberal justices have denied that babies are real people, yet not even the most conservative justices consider the indisputable evidence worth mentioning.]
Dobbs v. Jackson, which overruled Roe in 2022, likewise left Roe’s hypothetical in place, 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....”
↑ More about “The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded 'conceded’ that ‘if...personhood is established’, then the ‘case’ for legal abortion ‘collapses’”
Read it for yourself at Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-157 (1973)
(Case citation explanation: In italics are the two parties to the controversy – the plaintiff, who sued, and the defendant, who was sued. “410” means the 410th book in the wall full of thick books titled “U.S. Reports”, which is a copy of all the SCOTUS rulings since SCOTUS was created by the U.S. Constitution. “113” is the page number where the ruling begins. Pages 156-157 are where the quote is found.)
“The Roe Court demurred on the central inquiry. [They objected to its relevance, as if saying “so what?”] 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. [Page 159-60 in the Roe ruling is where the ruling passed] on “the difficult question of when life begins,” referencing differing belief systems). Wary of decreeing the precise moment of life, whether at conception, birth, or some time in between, the Roe Court rejected life as a marker and settled on viability as [the]way to denote the State’s interest.” (Amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by Center for Religious Expression www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185542/20210802162418144_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Center%20for%20Religious%20Expression.pdf)
↑ More about “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 v Jackson, 945 F. 3d 265, 597 US _ (2022)
(Hmmm. No page numbers given.)
↑ More about “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 didn’t say that even in the face of irresistible evidence that the littlest humans are fully human, voters should still decide whether to keep murdering them.
     Dobbs does not say either that (1) it is impossible or impermissible for “abortion kills a human being” to graduate from a “sincere belief” to a “fact”; or that (2) even if that fact is established, that won’t make abortion legally recognizable as murder; or that (3) even after abortion is legally recognizable as murder, voters should still get to decide whether to keep it legal. For further analysis of Dobbs see my review at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Troubling_Excerpts_&_Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson
     But Justice Kavanaugh came close. So his reasoning needs to be understood and corrected.
     His logic, in his Dobbs Concurrence, fully rejects “equal protection of the laws” for little humans. By his logic, my “view” of your human worth to me must dictate whether it is legal for me to kill you. If you interfere with my “personal and professional life”, you need to go.
     No exaggeration. He actually wrote that the abortionist morality of killing babies to improve “women’s personal and professional lives [to] achieve greater freedom” is equivalent to the prolife morality of “all life should be protected”. He thinks both “interests” show equal “good faith”.
     He said that as he criticized the one or two of the 140 Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs that said that since babies are people, killing them should be outlawed. He wrote,
“Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion. “The Constitution does not grant the nine unelected Members of this Court the unilateral authority to rewrite the Constitution to create new rights and liberties based on our own moral or policy views.”

     Well no, we don’t want America shackled to Kavanaugh’s moral or policy views. But America would be blessed to have him rule based on reality.
     Kavanaugh writes, “The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion....a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in American history and tradition....”
     Thank you for noticing. Let us pray for the day you will notice that the converse is true according to Dobbs’ own review of 50 early court rulings and laws, though Dobbs didn’t point this out: the right of babies to live IS “deeply rooted in American history and tradition”. Although...
     “Deeply rooted in American history and tradition” is a stupid, cruel criteria for whether to protect a fundamental right.
     “Deeply rooted in American history and tradition” is a silly basis for recognizing a right as fundamental, and a cruel basis for legalizing genocide. By that criteria, treated as so important by court precedents and legal scholars, slavery should never have ended, because freedom for all blacks was certainly not “deeply rooted in American history and tradition”! This silly criteria is a distraction from what DOES matter: the FACT that babies are people, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder.
     SCOTUS should have noticed by now, and corrected, its selective, agenda-serving inconsistency. SCOTUS certainly didn't overturn Texas' sodomy laws, or require states to respect sodomite marriage, because civil rights for sodomites including "marriage" are "deeply rooted in American history and tradition"!

(Amicus of LONANG Institute filed in Dobbs v. Jackson:) "Denying the textual meaning of legal words is not a novel invention of the Court. Instead, it has historical precedent going back to the first recorded case in human history. At issue in that case, In Re: Adam, Eve & the Devil, 3 Genesis 1 (0001), was the intent and meaning of a statute prohibiting consumption of fruit from a specific tree in a Garden in Eden. A statute prohibiting such consumption was at issue. Two of the parties violated the statute and entered a guilty plea. A second statute prohibited various forms of fraud and deception. A third party was charged under this statute alleging he used deception to induce co-defendants to consume the prohibited fruit.

"At trial, he argued that he was not liable on the theory that the first statute did not actually prohibit consumption—that the words in the statute did not mean what the text declared. [Plausible but not recorded interaction between God and Satan. That is probably how Satan argued then, or at least would have argued had not The Judge imposed an in limine restriction on defending himself at all after Eve accused him, because that is how his servants still argue today.] As such he argued that he did not engage in deceit in his statements to the other parties. The Court was unpersuaded. It rejected the argument, finding that the prohibition was clear and unambiguous, reflected the drafter’s original intent and was, therefore, enforceable as written.

"This Court’s fourteenth amendment substantive due process jurisprudence is based on the same argument first made in Eden—the words of the law do not mean what they say. The Court has maintained the amendment itself contains a substantive due process clause into which the Court is empowered to pour un-enumerated fundamental rights of its own divination.

"The Court’s atextual adjustments, purportedly limited by the outcomeflexible concept of “judicial restraint,” have been internally justified by its moral appeals to novel high-sounding phrases such as “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 500 (1965)] or the “concept of personal liberty,” [Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)] or “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition,” [Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)] or “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” [Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644; 135 S. Ct. at 2629 (2015) ] Alas, none of these phrases have textual support in the amendment itself. Nor has the Court been granted any state legislative power in Article III to define ordered or personal liberty, individual autonomy, or traipse through history and tradition to discover and append any un-enumerated substantive individual rights into the amendment’s textually non-existent “substantive” due process clause. Nor does the law of nature of judicial review empower this Court to write new Constitutional text. The authority of a judge is to declare what written law already exists. The standard legal maxim is, Jus dicere, et non jus dare, also known as judicis est jus dicere non dare. The province of a judge is to declare the law, not to make it.8 At what point in time and on whose authority did that rule, binding on judges in England and America for centuries, become nonbinding?" tsac Lonang Institute.pdf

     (This is a preview of the final section of this book which builds on Justice Thomas's dissents and concurrences in which he traces the history of how SCOtUS transformed Congress' 14th Amendment authority to enforce rights specified in the Constitution into its own authority to enforce rights which it made up by itself.)
     The only value of historical laws and precedents is their testimony about the FACT that babies are people, since judges and legislatures are court-recognized fact finders. But today’s fact finders, informed by advances in medical science about when human life begins, at least physically, are better informed.
     Back to Kavanaugh: If courts must be silent on murder, what crime is enough greater to merit their involvement? Slavery isn’t a greater crime! Slavery is surely a lesser crime than dismemberment, so if people in “blue states” should vote on whether they can murder by dismemberment, people in Southern states have a far greater right to vote on whether to have slaves! (Although today blacks would not be the likely target for slavery, but rather “illegals”.)
     (Although today it is not Southern states most likely to vote for slavery, but “blue states”, since Democrats defended slavery militarily through 1865, terrorized black Republicans for decades past 1865, opposed Martin Luther King’s reforms by wider margins than Republicans in Congress, and today cruelly treat “disloyal” black conservatives like Justice Clarence Thomas. On the other hand “red states” will more likely vote for slavery if those to be enslaved are, instead of blacks, undocumented immigrants. But I digress.)
     Kavanaugh thinks it is compelling evidence that not even Scalia, Thomas, or White ever said no state should be allowed to legalize murdering babies because they are people. (...No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. ...) Kavanaugh here explicitly dismisses the only FACTor that matters: not what our ancestors thought, not whether baby killers “argue forcefully”, not what any law, precedent, or even Constitution says: but the FACT that babies are people. That fact, established, makes Kavanaugh seem callous at best and satanic in his regard for human life at worst.

Pretending judges can’t tell if babies of humans are humans, as Roe did, is a sophistry no longer believable if it ever was. When judges profess greater ignorance than that of children, they should not claim to know better than state legislatures.
↑ More about “Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that...this fact, independently of any...future constitutional amendment, dictates whether abortion is legal...”
     Professor Nathan Schluetter argued that numerous prolife leaders err in thinking some kind of “Life Amendment” to the Constitution is needed before prolifers can think about outlawing abortion in every state, as if the 14th Amendment, plus all the evidence we now have, isn’t enough. As if meanwhile, justice is so blind that voters will have to decide whether to keep murdering babies, not on the basis of the fact that babies are people, which we supposedly still can’t know, but on the basis of babies’ value to voters! (See Finding #1, Note #1.)
     Do you agree with Schluetter and me, that such agnosticism is error? Evil, cruel, God-defying error? Or do you agree with conservative justices and with many top prolife leaders that it is a great thing for voters to decide whether to perpetuate mass murder?
     Schluetter’s final paragraph from the more complete excerpt in note 1, Finding #1:
     “However well-intentioned, the arguments of the restoration [to voters of the decision whether to legalize murder] advocates [including the conservative SCOTUS justices and several prominent prolife leaders] are usually grounded in an epistemological skepticism that is alien to normal constitutional interpretation and harmful to the political morality on which free government is based.”
↑ More about “'whether abortion is...a right or a crime' [is settled by the fact that babies are people, said Roe, an observation which Dobbs did not challenge]”
Schlueter, in his 2003 debate with Judge Bork, wrote that the reasoning of Roe and Casey “leaves out of the equation” the same thing that Dobbs later left out in 2022:
“the paramount question of the status of the unborn child. The Justices write as if this question can be ignored or constitutes merely a “value judgment” about which reasonable people can disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia himself explicitly asserts this latter position in his dissenting opinion to the Casey decision: ‘There is of course no way to determine that [i.e., whether the human fetus is a human life] 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.’

“But if the status of the unborn child is merely a value judgment, then there is at least a plausible argument that the states have no right prohibiting abortion, especially when one considers the considerable burden an unexpected, unwanted, or dangerous pregnancy can place on a woman. Indeed, Justice Scalia’s arguments have a frightening moral and epistemological agnosticism at their center.”
↑ More about “This established fact is not disestablished by any judge’s claimed inability to understand it.”
“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)

     Priests For Life wasn’t awed by what a difficult question that is, or by the Court’s OK with not “resolving” it. PFL introduced the quote with “When deciding Roe v. Wade, this Court infamously stated....” PFL named the religion upon which that apathy about murdering babies is based, and noted the similarity of Roe (which protected baby killers) with Dred Scott v. Sandford (which protected slave owners’ “property rights” to their slaves):

"Consistent with this veiled philosophical pronouncement—a pronouncement grounded in secular positivism—a majority of the justices concluded that the U.S. Constitution “does not define ‘person,’” leading the Court to ultimately conclude that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Id. at 158.
     "The Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade is similar to how the Court had previously concluded in the infamous Dred Scott decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)) that people of color were not legal “persons” as a matter of federal constitutional law. Unfortunately, it took a civil war to correct this injustice."

(Actually Scott v. Sandford described slaves as “a class of persons” several times, but denied that they were “people of the United States”, since the Constitution treated that phrase as synonymous with “citizens”, and Africans certainly weren’t “citizens”. I don’t think the 140 page decision noticed the contradiction that blacks were “persons” but not “people” even though they are forms of the same word.)

     (Actually Scott v. Sandford described slaves as “a class of persons” several times, but denied that they were “people of the United States”, since the Constitution treated that phrase as synonymous with “citizens”, and Africans certainly weren’t “citizens”. I don’t think the 140 page decision noticed the contradiction that blacks were “persons” but not “people” even though they are forms of the same word. The myth that the words have such different meanings that some people aren't "persons" has been so prevalent among prolifers that I address it in Statement of Fact #8, as well as later in this Statement.)
     Roe acknowledged the testimony of only one fact finder: Texas Attorney General Wade. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973) (Although Dobbs later corrected Roe’s history with 50 examples of earlier state laws and court rulings. See Appendix A, with footnotes #69-119, DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265, 597 US _ (2022)
↑ More about “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.”
“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)

     Is pagan dehumanization of vulnerable people groups our new model for American law, instead of “All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”? Dehumanization by pagan religions and nations extends also to immigrants, women, children, “disbelievers”, and anyone who criticizes the government or the government-favored church, or anyone any bureaucrat doesn’t like. And this is what Scalia and Thomas urge?
     Professor Schluetter writes,

This “leaves out of the equation the paramount question of the status of the unborn child. The Justices write as if this question can be ignored or constitutes merely a “value judgment” about which reasonable people can disagree....

“But if the status of the unborn child is merely a value judgment, then there is at least a plausible argument that the states have no right prohibiting abortion, especially when one considers the considerable burden an unexpected, unwanted, or dangerous pregnancy can place on a woman. Indeed, Justice Scalia’s arguments have a frightening moral and epistemological agnosticism at their center....

“By making the determination of human life a value judgment, Justice Scalia forecloses the possibility that any scientific proof or rational demonstration can establish that an unborn child is a human being. Indeed, he ultimately forecloses the possibility that there can be any rational discussion of the matter at all, insofar as values by their very nature are subjectively determined.

“Taken to an extreme, as Justice Scalia’s legal positivism in this matter seems to do, democracy becomes the simple exercise whereby the powerful define for themselves their ‘own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of life,’ to use the famous words of the majority opinion in the  Casey decision. In such a universe, constitutional government is superfluous. One is strongly reminded of Lincoln’s arguments with respect to slavery: ‘If [the Negro] is not a man, why in that case, he who  is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the Negro  is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern  himself ?’ ....

“It cannot be too strongly emphasized that whether or not an unborn child is [in fact] a human being is  the critical question in this debate, and the question was definitively answered decades ago. Whatever might be said for an earlier time, today there can be no scientific disagreement as to the biological beginning of human life. Embryology, fetology, and medical science all attest to the basic facts of human growth and development, and medical textbooks for decades have declared that distinct and individual human life begins at conception. Contrary to Justice Scalia’s assertion, this is not a value question any more than that of whether an acorn is an oak tree.” See a debate with Judge Bork. www.firstthings.com/article/2003/01/ constitutional-persons-an-exchange-on-abortion a debate with Judge Bork.

     Equal protection of the laws is a principle throughout the Bible but not found in other religions. For example,
     Exodus 12:49 (BBE) The law is the same for him who is an Israelite by birth and for the man from a strange country who is living with you.
     Leviticus 24:22 You are to have the same law for a man of another nation living among you as for an Israelite; for I am the Lord your God.
     Numbers 15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. 16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
     Galatians 3:28 (CEV) Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman.
     Colossians 3:11 (CEV) It doesn't matter if you are a Greek or a Jew, or if you are circumcised or not. You may even be a barbarian or a Scythian, and you may be a slave or a free person. Yet Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us.
↑ More about “Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human.”
     This statement is legally correct, but just for the record, it is a popular misunderstanding that this is what our Constitution actually did to blacks in 1789: classify them as only 3/5 human, as is presumed by this 2010 song whose purpose was to explain history: “Am I just three fifths of a man? Broken back and calloused hands Giving my very life to the land Am I just three-fifths of a man?” Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emcKV9sq7Fc
     Clarifying this misunderstanding probably doesn’t contribute to saving babies, but just for the record, not even one fifth of unborn babies or “Indians not taxed” were counted, with no insinuation that they were any less than 5/5 human:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons. - the U.S. Constitution, Section 2, Paragraph 3, 1st sentence.

     As you can see, the Census had two purposes, neither of which was related to any dehumanization of blacks. One reason was to calculate each state’s share of taxes it must pay to the federal government. There was no income tax then, so based on their proportionate population, states paid the bill directly, which is why it was called a “Direct Tax”. Southern states didn’t want to count slaves at all for this purpose, so they wouldn’t have to pay very much taxes, while Northern states would have liked to count each slave as 5 people so the Southern states would pay more of the needed taxes! After all, slaves were worth a lot of money!
     The other reason for counting people was to give states Congressmen in proportion to their population. So Southern states wanted to count each slave as 10 people so they could have lots of Congressmen, while Northern states (who did have slaves because British governors wouldn’t let states outlaw slavery, but far fewer) wanted to count each slave as zero because they didn’t want Southern states to have any Congressmen, and certainly no more than proportionate to the number of people with political rights.
     3/5 was their compromise between those two interests. The Civil War might not have been necessary had the South not had bloated numbers of Congressmen voting to protect slavery. It would have been more just and logical, and it might have saved three quarters of a million lives, to not count any part of the slave population towards apportioning congressmen. But it had nothing to do with how human anyone thought blacks were, and my observation (that slavery might have more peacefully ended had slaves been counted as zero towards giving Southern states more Congressmen) does not mean I regard blacks as not even 3/5 human!
     The modern revisionist myth that the 3/5 proportion somehow meant America’s Founders regarded blacks as that much less than human barely occurred, if it did at all, to the people of that time. This is evidenced by the fact that the 3/5 ratio was never mentioned in all 240 pages of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which helped spark the Civil War by ruling that blacks were “persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves” but not “citizens” even if they were free, and thus had zero rights in courts. It did not occur even to those monsters to see validation in that ratio of their fanatical dehumanization of blacks.
     Encyclopedia Brittanica reports:

Granting slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their population of enslaved individuals when it came to apportioning representatives to Congress meant that those states would thus be perpetually overrepresented in national politics. However, this same ratio was to be used to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise
↑ More about “The 14th Amendment protects those who are IN FACT people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people ‘as a matter of law’.”
     State supreme courts ruled in Operation Rescue-type cases that Roe made babies non-persons “as a matter of law”, so therefore evidence that babies are in fact people was irrelevant, and therefore juries weren’t allowed to know about it. Roe said no such thing, but the opposite: that such evidence would “of course” be dispositive.
     Should we use the word “people” vs. the word “persons”?
     Prolife grammar got weird when Roe talked about the word “persons” in the 14th Amendment. It has been imagined not only that there is some unfathomable though intimidating difference not only between “persons” and “humans” but also between “persons” and “people”. Only divas with J.D. degrees have a right to understand how these differences truly do justify murdering 70 million babies. It is for the unwashed masses to step back in grateful awe.
     We unworthy, insufficiently educated prolifers, though unable to grasp exalted baby killing grammar, and similarly unable to grasp the justice of baby killing, poke around these strange words in our desperate effort to communicate with the divas. Hence our emphasis on using the word “persons” in “personhood” statements and amendments, not, Heaven forbid, the word “people”.
     But they are the same word.
     I realize what a shock this is to say such a thing. Blasphemy, or something like. But check with a grammar website. They are the same word. The only difference is that “people” is the normal way to talk. “Persons” isn’t. That’s the only difference. That’s the only reason judges talk about “persons”.
     Well, that, and the fact that the 14th Amendment used the word “persons” when that word choice was more normal, so when judges and lawyers today talk about it, they quote the same word. Just as we Christians quote the words of the King James Version, even though some of them sound weird, just to be accurate.
     Perhaps if we insist on talking normally, despite the social pressure, the divas will retreat from their abnormal usage, seeing it no longer intimidates, no longer shields them from our questions about how murdering 70 million babies can be just.
     But you don’t believe me, do you? So here is from a grammar website: [3]
Grammar > Easily confused words > Person, persons or people? from English Grammar Today

We use person in the singular to refer to any human being: “Joel is such a nice person.” “She’s a person I have a lot of respect for.”

Persons (plural) is a very formal word. We only use it in rather legalistic contexts: “Any person or persons found in possession of illegal substances will be prosecuted.”

To refer to groups of human beings or humans in general, we use people: “I saw three people standing on the corner.” (Not: “I saw three persons …” ) “Jim and Wendy are such nice people.” “People are generally very selfish.” “Three people were interviewed for the job, but only one person had the right qualifications and experience.”

Statement of Fact #4: Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life

Detectable heartbeats and brain waves are evidence that a person has not yet died, throughout state and federal law.1 Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that a person has begun to live.

Footnotes will be finished and posted soon, God willing. A rough draft of the entire book from which this post is taken is posted at www.saltshaker.us/ReversingLandmarkAbominationCases. Target date for completion, including completion of processing nuggets from the 140 Amicus Briefs posted in Dobbs v. Jackson: Christmas, 2023.

Statement of Fact #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 an unwanted group of humans completely unregulated. That interpretation of Dobbs’ holding is premised on a “mistake of fact”, which is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection. 1

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

That is an erroneous factual premise. The fact that unborn babies of humans are humans is neither unknowable nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive.3 The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that Dobbs’ holding interpretation, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.4

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

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 Fact #7: Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion

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 Fact #8: 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 Fact #9: SCOTUS never denied that state personhood laws are strong evidence in an abortion case

SCOTUS never said Personhood Laws are impotent. SCOTUS only said a personhood law by itself, without penalties, (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 Fact #10: “Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions

Evidence of Life is not disproved by an “exception...for the purpose of saving the life of the mother” and/or by not charging the mother with being a “principal or an accomplice” to murder, as Roe’s footnote 54 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 Fact #11: The 14th Amendment requires this state, as every state, to thoroughly outlaw abortion. Restrictions of abortions for the purpose of saving mothers cannot be reviewed by strict scrutiny,1 even though the safety of mothers is a fundamental right, because the safety of their babies is an equally fundamental right. Legislatures can best delineate the most life-saving balance of harms. 2

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 Fact #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

[1] More about “...murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize”
The legal goal of outlawing abortion in every state is dismissed by every SCOTUS justice and by most prolife lawyers, (quotes follow), but that goal has failed only by ignoring this consensus of fact finders - “the Mammoth in the Room”. It has been successfully ignored only because prolife lawmakers have not placed it in Findings of Facts where judges were forced to address it.
The Constitution isn’t as bad as prolifers think: Schluetter.
Debating with Judge Bork, Law professor Nathan Schluetter at Hillsdale College wrote in 2003: “It is surprising...that on this most central constitutional and moral issue [that babies are in fact people so we shouldn’t murder them] a preponderance of pro-life advocates and legal scholars continually misinterpret the Constitution. According to them, a proper reading of the Constitution would [go no farther than to] reject [Roe’s] concept of a privacy right to abortion, and thus return the nation to the pre-Roe status quo in which the decision of when, whether, and how to regulate [murder] was left to the states. In offering this 'restoration interpretation,' they ignore or reject the proper interpretation, which would extend the [right to life] of the Fourteenth Amendment to unborn persons [which will outlaw baby killing in every state]. This is what I will call in this essay the ‘unborn person interpretation.’
“They continue to do this despite the fact that both the majority in Roe and the appellants to the case conceded that if the personhood of the unborn [or, the fact that babies of people are real people] could be established, ‘the [abortionist’s] case, [for legalizing baby killing in every state] of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment [thus outlawing abortion in EVERY state].’
“To gauge the pervasiveness of the restoration interpretation among life advocates, one need only consult [a past issue of this publication]. Forty-five leading pro-life advocates, including Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life, Wanda Franz of the National Right to Life Committee, and Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, signed a much heralded joint ‘Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern’ published in First Things in 1996 in which the primary legal complaint was made that Roe ‘wounded American democracy’ by removing the issue of abortion from 'democratic concern.'
“The statement suggested two legal remedies: first, the Supreme Court could reverse Roe , returning the issue to the states; second, the nation could pass a constitutional amendment that would extend Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to unborn persons.
“The statement does not even hint at the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons [based on the indisputable fact that babies are real people, requiring no additional legal recognition of their right to life]. The First Things statement seems to reflect the unanimous opinion of those Justices on the Supreme Court who have urged reversing Roe , not one of whom has attempted to make or even respond in their opinions to the unborn person interpretation. [Not even the most liberal justices have denied that babies are real people, yet not even the most conservative justices consider the indisputable evidence worth mentioning.]
This misunderstanding doesn’t just threaten babies. “However well-intentioned, the arguments of the restoration advocates are usually grounded in an epistemological skepticism that is alien to normal constitutional interpretation and harmful to the political morality on which free government is based.”

[2] More about “Juries/court-recognized Finders of Facts”
When juries ruled that babies are real people. When prolifers blocked abortionists’ doors before 1993, the only seriously disputed fact issue at trial was whether human lives were saved. The earliest juries ruled that they were, and acquitted, so judges stopped letting juries hear that defense. Abortionists were so scared of juries thinking babies are people, that when a judge decided to let the jury hear that defense, the abortionist would drop the prosecution.
A law school journal reports: “After the court ruled that it would allow the [Necessity] Defense to go to the jury, the Women for Women Clinic dropped the prosecution. If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution, which is merely proving the elements of criminal trespass. [Except for the one element that matters, and the only contested trial issue: whether lives were saved.] Rather than risk such a precedent, many clinics prefer to dismiss. In fact, defense counsel have admitted that their intent is to bring the abortion issue back before the United States Supreme Court to consider the very question of when life begins, an issue on which the Court refused to rule in Roe...” (The Cincinnati Law Review footnote analyzes the case of Ohio v. Rinear, No. 78999CRB-3706 (Mun. Ct. Hamilton County, Ohio, dismissed May 2, 1978)
Juries don’t usually give reasons for their verdicts. I (Dave Leach, author) was a defendant in such a trial, where the judge allowed the jury to hear the defense, the abortionist let the case proceed, and the jury acquitted. State v. Brouillette, et al, Johnson County, Iowa, 1989. 155 of us were arrested January 26, 1989 for blocking the doors of the Emma Goldman clinic in Iowa City, Iowa. Rather than pack all 155 in the court room, 16 of us were tried in the first batch. It was assumed that what happened to them would drive what happened later to the rest; especially since J. Patrick White, the prosecuting county attorney, had told newspapers that if the first 16 were acquitted there is no way he would prosecute the others.
How God provided an official record of the jury’s reasons. But after the jury acquitted the first 16, White refused to dismiss, and that is the only reason we have an official court record documenting that the Defense of Justification was the only issue before the jury. The jury didn’t say so, but the judge did, in his ruling dismissing the remaining charges. That ruling is so helpful, and the difficulty of getting an official record of a jury’s reasons so great, that God must be credited and thanked for presumably hardening the heart of the prosecutor so the judge had to rule.
The judge wrote that both sides stipulated to (officially agreed about) the facts. “Each Defendant stipulated to his or her identity; to entering and remaining upon public property; and to failing to leave said public property after being notified and requested to vacate by persons whose duty it was to supervise the use and maintenance of this property. By this stipulation, the sole element of the offense of Criminal Trespass which remained to be proven was whether each defendant acted without justification. [Violating a minor offense, like trespassing, is “justified” when it is “necessary” to save lives.] The verdict of the jury indicates the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the one essential element of the charge which remained in issue.
“In a trial of the remaining 138 Defendants, [one of the 155 arrested was juvenile and was not charged], a jury would be presented with this identical issue. So the remaining charges should be dropped by the theory of Issue Preclusion - if Joe is found innocent after doing something, Jack should be after doing the same thing.)”
Another such case may be Northern Virginia Women's Medical Center v. Balch, 617 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (4th Cir. 1980) which refers to two unreported cases where “necessity” led to acquittals. But it is not clear whether it was a jury or “bench” trial.

[3] More about “Expert Witnesses/court-recognized Fact Finders’”
Doctors & geneticists routinely testified in “Operation Rescue”-type door-blocking trials. See footnote #4: “If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution,” The evidence is presented by expert witnesses – doctors, geneticists, etc.
When a world famous geneticist flew from France to Wichita. A case widely reported among prolifers was when Elizabeth Tilson, a defendant who blocked an abortion door so mothers couldn’t go inside to kill their babies, flew in a world famous geneticist from France to Judge Paul Clark’s Wichita court. There was no jury, but a “bench” trial over which Clark presided. His lengthy ruling, acquitting Tilson, is reported in Appendix H of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. A paperback is available at Amazon; a free PDF is posted at www.Saltshaker.us.
How Courts Dodged Overwhelming Evidence of Life. The defense raised in virtually all those trials of all those 60,000+ arrested life savers was based on American law, not religion. I know of no case where anyone asked for a religious exemption from letting the slaughter continue, or who gave Bible verses as the reason they should be acquitted. And yet courts routinely dismissed legitimate legal defenses as being exclusively religious.
Surely the most notorious example was Elizabeth Tilson’s defense on July 20, 1992. She even flew in the world’s top geneticist from France, Dr. LeJeune, to testify about “when life begins”. District Judge Paul Clark, summarizing the defense and ruling in her favor, did not indicate religion was any part of the defense. (See excerpts in Appendix H, p. 145.) Yet the Kansas Court dismissed all that world-class scientific evidence as a “moral or ethical belief” of some dowdy no-account religious kook housewife who expects law to bow to her superstitions.

If recognized as [a] defense in [a] criminal case, justification by necessity defense only applies when [the] harm or evil which [the] defendant seeks to prevent by his or her own criminal conduct is legal[ly recognized] harm or evil as opposed to moral or ethical belief of individual defendant....defendants did not engage in illegal conduct because they were faced with a choice of evils. Rather, they intentionally trespassed on complainant's property in order to interfere with the rights of others....City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993)

But what about the world-class testimony that human beings were being slaughtered? Completely irrelevant, the court said. We have to follow “law”, not some frowsy housewife’s “moral or ethical belief”:

In a criminal prosecution for trespass upon the property of an abortion clinic, the defense of justification by necessity is inapplicable and evidence of when life begins is irrelevant. The admission of evidence of when life begins in such an action was error by the trial court....Judge Paul Clark held that...the defendant was absolved of any criminal liability for her actions, based upon the necessity defense [which] justified her trespassing upon the Clinic property for the purpose of saving a human life. At trial, over the objections of the City, the defendant was allowed to introduce expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The City did not attempt to controvert such evidence but instead took the position that the evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant. City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993)

Her REAL motive, said the Court, was not “saving a human life” as documented by the world’s leading expert on genetics at all, but was “to interfere with the rights of others” according to some individual’s “moral or ethical belief”
This is not an isolated “straw man” misconstruction of a serious legal defense. Appellate courts did it routinely. Appendix F of my book, linked in Note 3, gives examples. If we could trust courts to never do that again, this book could be a lot shorter.
Doctors testifying as official Expert Witnesses in “rescue” trials was so routine that even I had one in my own trial. I found a doctor to testify in my own trial after I was arrested for sitting in front of a Planned Barrenhood door to prevent mothers from coming in to murder their babies. It was after a workshop put on by “rescuers” to educate people who had never been inside a courtroom how to conduct ourselves in court, since few of us could afford a lawyer and lawyers successful in such cases could not be found. Doctors willing to testify for free were plentiful. Their testimony was routine in “rescue” trials, even after judges stopped allowing juries to hear them. There were not just a few trials. In about 1992 Operation Rescue reported that there had been over 60,000 arrests of door-blockers.
After judges stopped letting juries listen to the witnesses, doctors still testified, but after sending the jury out. It is called a “proffer” of evidence; the judge rules that it is irrelevant, but he will let the evidence go into the record so that it will be there for any appeal.
Updated science is summarized by the Illinois Right to Life in their amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson. “Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in his testimony in connection with the 1981 hearing on Senate Bill 158, the Human Life Bill, see infra at 15-16, concluded, ‘I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.’ Cited in House Resolution No. 214, https://perma. cc/6XRG-L2C8.
The Consensus of Biologists. “b. An overwhelming majority of biologists recognize that a human’s life begins at fertilization. A recent international study involving 5,577 biologists from 86 countries who work at 1,061 top-ranked academic institutions confirmed the scientific consensus on when life begins. The study asked biologists to confirm or reject five statements that represent the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization. The majority of the biologists in the study identified as liberal (89%), pro#choice (85%), and non-religious (63%). 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed at least one of the statements and only 240 participants declined to affirm any statements (4%).
The study participants were also asked to answer an essay question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” Most biologists (68%) indicated fertilization. Thus, while in Roe, the Court found that experts could not arrive at any consensus at that point in the development of man’s knowledge, that is no longer the case.” [American participants included biologists from Harvard University, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Yale University. See When Does Life Begin?, Illinois Right to Life, https://perma.cc/U99P-4Y6C. Steven A. Jacobs, Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate, Knowledge@Uchicago, 2019, https://perma.cc/GZT2-8JDN
An Official Senate Report. “c. Legislative hearings on when life begins marshalled scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization. During hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, numerous scientific experts testified regarding when life begins. The Official Senate Report concluded that: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” [Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7] In the hearings, Dr. Jerome Lejeune testified that “[l]ife has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning – the moment of its conception” because “[t]o accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence.” S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 transcript, 18. [ S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 Transcript, https://perma. cc/6DCT-UT4P.]
No alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in scientific literature. “Experts from leading institutions have testified that there are no alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in the scientific literature. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor of Medical Genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic, testified: “I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against.” Id. at 52. This lack of any published, let alone generally accepted, alternative scientific theories was also attested to by Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate in the Department of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Id. at 41-42. ...
A few disagree but without even trying to invoke science, medicine, or facts. “While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.”
Even baby killers admit they are killing baby humans. "d. Even doctors who perform abortions and proponents of abortion rights admit fetuses are human beings. Many practitioners of abortion and supporters of abortion rights acknowledge human life begins at conception.(26) For example, when abortion doctor Dr. Curtis Boyd was interviewed, he acknowledged with respect to abortion: “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.”(27) Abortion rights supporter and ethicist Peter Singer has written that being “a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
e. Views opposing the position that human life starts at fertilization are unscientific and ideological.
While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.
....Ultimately, opposing arguments to the scientific consensus that a human’s life begins at fertilization are fallacious or focus on aspects of biology that are not relevant to the biological classification of human beings.
26. Derek Smith, Pro-Choice Concedes: Prominent Abortion Proponents Concede The Barbarity Of Abortion, Human Defense Initiative, Nov. 7, 2018, https://perma.cc/GXH8-MAUU. See also, A New Ethic for Medicine and Society, California Medicine, Sep. 1970.
27. KVUE Austin Interview of Dr. Curtis Boyd, at 0:23, YouTube, Nov. 6, 2009, https://perma.cc/GYB2-3YFY.

[4] More about “State Legislatures/court-recognized Fact Finders”
“At least 38 states”, (enough to enact a Constitutional Amendment), “have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.” Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728 (Ala. 2012) The ruling’s basis: “State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622, 689 n. 46, 998 A.2d 1, 50 n.46 (2010) (‘[As of March 2010], at least [thirty-eight] states have fetal homicide laws.’ (quoting the National Conference of State Legislatures, Fetal Homicide Laws (March 2010) (alterations in Courchesne)”
Amicus filed in Dobbs by Illinois Right to Life:
LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf “Fetuses are recognized as human persons in numerous contexts: (1) laws that restrict abortion at some point in fetal development, (2) fetal homicide laws, (3) prohibitions against capital punishment imposed upon pregnant women, (4) recovery for fetal deaths under wrongful death statutes, (5) the rights of preborn children under property law, (6) legal guardianship of prenatal humans, [See Paul Benjamin Linton, The Legal Status of the Unborn Child Under State Law, 6 U. St. Thomas J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 2011, https://perma.cc/XB8E-G375. ] (7) the rights of preborn children to a deceased parent’s Social Security and Disability benefits[SSR 68-22: SECTION 216(h)(3)(C). – Relationship – Status of Illegitimate Posthumous Child, Social Security Administration, https://perma.cc/W3TR-89L9. ], and (8) the rights of inheritance of posthumously born children.[. Alea Roberts, Where’s My Share?: Inheritance Rights of Posthumous Children, American Bar Association, Jun. 13, 2019, https://perma.cc/36VN-HZZ8 ] Despite the plethora of contexts in which fetuses are recognized as persons under the law, this Court has yet to recognize the personhood of preborn humans.
“b. States are increasingly proposing and enacting laws protective of unborn human beings even when abortion is curtailed as a result.
“Today, 43 states have enacted laws protecting prenatal humans although abortion is thereby restricted. All but one restrict abortion access at the earliest point permissible by Roe (viability), and states have recently more emphatically asserted a state interest in the lives of previable human beings by seeking to protect them: (1) after the sixth week since that is known to be the point at which a fetus’ heart first beats (AL HB314; IA SF359) and (2) after the twentieth week since that has been found toItalic text be the point at which a fetus can first feel pain (OH SB 127).”
States don’t unanimously protect the unborn, but no state finds that unborn babies are not human persons. Plus, 38 states is enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Not that they should: as other Findings observe, there is already more than enough consensus of fact finders to require outlawing of abortion in every state; and the consensus of fact finders is actually a stronger legal reason than a constitutional amendment, since no other Amendment was ratified to establish a fact.) Illinois Right to Life:
Changes in the law have further eroded the underpinnings Roe. Those changes [legally] recognize the human fetus as a human being.

a. Enactment of fetal homicide laws in almost 80% of states demonstrates that, outside of the abortion context, a human fetus is legally recognized as a human being.

In its 1973 Roe decision, the Court stated, “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 162. This has changed markedly since that time. Legislators in 38 of 50 states have enacted laws that criminalize the intentional killing of a human fetus. These “fetal homicide” laws, which only apply to non-abortive killings, recognize that preborn human fetuses are human beings entitled to protection under the law. In this context, a majority of states today recognize a human fetus as a human person from the moment of fertilization.

The fact that babies are people is established by this consensus of states – of all who have taken a position. (Not even the “bluest” state asserts that they are not people, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.) This affirmation is not diminished by the failure of some states to protect babies from abortion. The response to facts by humans is an unreliable way to document facts. But regarding this fact, the verdict is unanimous.

[5] More about “Judges/Fact Finders”
One example is Judge Paul Clark: see footnote 3. Another is Justice Dimond in Alaska: Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, 631 P.2d 1073, 1084:
(Concurring:) "I empathize with the defendants' sorrow over the loss of human lives caused by abortions. I believe the United States Supreme Court burdened this court with a tragic decision when it held in Roe...that the word “person, as used in the fourteenth amendment, does not include the unborn...”, and that states cannot “override the rights of the pregnant woman” by “adopting one theory of life.”
"I do not agree with the Court's conclusion that a state's interest in potential life does not become “compelling” until the fetus has attained viability. It stated its explanation for this conclusion as follows:
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” (410 U.S. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 731-32, 35 L.Ed.2d at 183) As Professor Tribe indicates, “One reads the court's explanation [of the magic line called “viability”] several times before becoming convinced that nothing has inadvertently been omitted.” (Tribe, Forward to The Supreme Court 1972 Term, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1. 4 (1973](footnote omitted]). I agree with Professor Tribe when he states, “Clearly, this (analysis] mistakes a definition for a syllogism”, and offers no reason at all for what the Court has held. (Id., quoting Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade , 82 Yale L.J. 920, 924 (1973](footnotes omitted]).
"In effect, the Supreme Court held that because there is no consensus as to when human life begins it can act as if it were proven that human life does not begin until birth so as to preserve to women the right to make their own decision whether an abortion takes a human life or not. It would make more sense to me if, in the face of uncertainty, any error made were side in favor of the fetus, which many believe to be human life.
"The development of a zygote into a human child is a continual, progressive development. No one suggests that the born child is not a human being. It seems undeniable, however, that human life begins before birth. As Professor Curran states:
“ '[T]he fetus one day before birth and the child one day after birth are not that significantly or qualitatively different – in any respect; Even outside the womb the newborn child is not independent but remains greatly dependent on the mother and others. Birth in fact does not really tell much about the individual as such but only where the individual is--either outside the womb or still Inside the womb.' (C. Curran, Transition and Tradition in Moral Theology, p. 209 (1919]). Similarly, viability does not mark the beginning of the truly human being.
[V]iability again indicates more about where the fetus can live than what it is. The fetus immediately before viability is not that qualitatively different from the viable fetus. In addition viability is a very inexact criterion because it is intimately connected with medical and scientific advances. In the future it might very well be possible for the fetus to live in an artificial womb or even with an artificial placenta from a very early stage in fetal development.
I join with those persons who believe that truly human life begins sometime between the second and third week after conception...."
A dissent by Justice Mahoney said
“Until the Court decides when a fetus is a person, I see no reason to deny the defense of necessity to those who believe that the fetus is viable and is a person...At least it would get the issue squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court....” Detwiler v. Akron, C.A. No. 14385 at 22 (9th App. Dist. 1990)

[6] More about “Congress/court-recognized Fact Finder
18 U.S.C. 1841(d) “...the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
Finding #7 explains why this Personhood statement is as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment, and is NOT mitigated by section (c), as alleged by the National Right to Life Committee and by Republican Congressmen.

[7] More about “No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected ‘life begins’ any later than conception.”
No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not even New York’s January 22, 2019 law.
This needs to be clarified because conservative news reported as if New York became an exception. Not that the law was harmless. It legalized abortions through birth when the abortionist alleged the baby would die soon anyway. It allowed non-doctors to kill babies. It repealed a law requiring a second physician to be present in case an infant was born alive and needed care.
But it didn’t define “person” to only mean human beings who are born, leaving unborn humans defined as non-persons. The articles I found didn’t exactly say that, but they implied that by reporting the definition of “persons”, without reporting that the definition was not added by the new law but had been in the law for years, and without reporting the context of the definition which simply means that when the coroner investigates dead bodies found in his county, or in a jail, he will not investigate unborn babies. It also means a judge, when excluding the public from divorce or rape trials, will not exclude unborn babies.
The definition: “ ‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”
As I said, the conservative reports didn’t directly say the definition meant that unborn babies were defined as nonpersons, so most readers might not have thought about it. But because I had been claiming that no American legal authority had ever ruled that babies become real people at any later time than fertilization, I wanted to look into it to see if New York had created an exception.
You can verify that the definition was already in the law by reading the bill, and noting that the phrase is not underlined, which is how additions to laws are indicated. See &Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y You can also verify it by reading the law as of 2016, which includes that definition. [1]
You can read the Breitbart report at 2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/
You can read the Townhall report at laurettabrown/2 019/01/23/new-york-passes-extreme-abortion-legislation-on-the-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade-n2539902
The law had previously read “Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an unborn child....]” The 2019 law deleted the part in brackets.
The definition previously had two more paragraphs which the 2019 law deleted. They defined the terms “abortional act” and “justifiable abortional act” which had been used in the now deleted law against late term abortion.
This point is worth clearing up because it is a very strong, important argument for the legal recognizability of all unborn babies as humans/persons, and of all abortions as murder, that no American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not one.
Not even foreign legal authorities support any right to abortion. 141 International Legal Scholars submitted an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson case declaring that “Whatever role international law plays in evaluating abortion regulations in the United States, it offers no basis for the existence of a human right to abortion.” (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185170/20210729071535904_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20141%20International%20Legal%20Scholars.pdf) “The minority of States that choose to allow elective abortion impose a standard gestational limit of twelve weeks, which is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.”
“If the Court chooses to consult international law in this case, it will find there is no treaty that recognizes a so-called human right to abortion, nor has such a right been established through customary law. To the contrary, the practice across all regions demonstrates a consistent State prerogative to protect unborn life. Nor has any international court declared the existence of an international right to abortion, even in regions with the most permissive abortion regimes. Third-party actors seeking to invent a new right to abortion err when interpreting key international instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Rome Statute, and the International Conference on Population and Development. The clear language in those documents defies any attempt to repurpose them to create an international human right to abortion.
“On the other hand, provisions recognizing the unborn child as a rights-holder can be found in many international human rights instruments, including the American Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Most States choose to exercise the prerogative to protect unborn life by regulating abortion much more strictly than in the United States. Even in the minority of States that permit elective abortions, most specify a gestational limit of twelve weeks. That limit is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which allows elective abortion until fifteen weeks’ gestation, and then permits abortion only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.”
Their conclusions were echoed by another international group, Center for Family and Human Rights (www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185123/20210728132729071_CFam Amicus Brief Filed.pdf)
“The 2018 Mississippi Gestational Age Act banning most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, when the child in utero is known to suffer pain from common abortion procedures, is fully consistent with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States, which presumptively protects the right to life of children in the womb (hereinafter, the “Covenant”), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. EXEC. DOC. E, 95-2 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976), as well as other human rights commitments and obligations of the United States.
“A careful reading of the text and history of the Covenant reveals that children in the womb were never excluded from the right to life, and that, more broadly, international law does not establish a human right to abortion in any circumstance, either through treaty obligation or by custom....
“Treaty law is the supreme Law of the Land and the Court has a constitutional responsibility to declare what the law is. The Court should make a finding of law that children in the womb are not excluded from the right to life under the Covenant, given the plain meaning of the text of the Covenant when it was ratified by the U.S., the interpretation of the Covenant by the Executive branch, and its implementation by other States who are party to the treaty, therefore, laws to protect children in the womb from being arbitrarily deprived of their right to life, regardless of viability, are consistent with the international human rights obligations of the United States.”

[8] More about “No state can keep abortion legal...even the lawyer for the abortionists agreed.”
Here is the excerpt from Roe’s Oral Arguments where the lawyer for the baby killers agreed that no state can keep abortion legal once the fact is established that babies of humans are humans from fertilization:
Justice Stewart: Well, if – if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have an almost impossible case here, would you not?
Mrs Weddington, the attorney for baby killers: (Laughing) I would have a very difficult case.
Here is the paragraph in the Roe ruling that refers to the admission of the baby killers’ lawyer:
“ ‘[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....”
This is the “collapse clause” in Roe which makes the fact that babies of humans are humans not only relevant, but dispositive (this fact alone requires outlawing of abortion in every state, without any further evidence or law). Roe’s main holding was overturned, but this holding has never been disputed, and it is just as obvious (“of course”) today as it was 50 years ago.
Because reality matters. Evidence matters. Facts matter.
The following arguments were made in the Amicus Brief filed in Dobbs by Illinois Right to Life. These facts were raised to demand overturn of Roe. But these facts demand more: the end of legal abortion in every state:
In Roe, the Court based its “viability” standard on: (a) lack of a scientific consensus on when human life begins... It recognized that if a human fetus is a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the case for unrestricted abortion would be untenable “for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Id. at 157.

...Thus, in Roe, the Court’s decision was based on its stated inability to locate in the record a scientific or legal basis for the humanity or personhood of the fetus, and the detriments posed by pregnancy and child-rearing. However, these conditions no longer prevail...

...Roe’s recognition of a right to abort a previable pregnancy rests on the belief that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person. [While Dobbs’ passing to states the power to legalize baby slaughter rests on ignoring the extinguishing of the life of a human person.] That belief [and that “scrupulous neutrality” about infanticide] is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus.

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. 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 [and legal abortion] of its factual and legal underpinnings....

Illinois Right to Life

If there are 39 witnesses to a murder, should a prosecutor bring forward only one? But legislatures have supported abortion bans with only their own testimony in their Findings. No 37 other states. No Congress. No thousands of uncontradicted expert witnesses. No dozens of juries. Only a trace of the overwhelming evidence for the claim that constitutionally protected “life begins” at fertilization.
For as long as prolifers do not justify their restrictions of abortion with the full range of evidence available from all states, the readiness of “blue states” to support baby murder will seem to “cancel” the laws against it in “red states”, as if the clash is between competing opinions about “when life begins”. It needs to be clarified that the consensus of all states that have taken a position is that protectable “life begins” at fertilization, and the only clash is between those who are horrified by these murders and those who don’t care.
The premise of Roe is its statement of a fact that might arguably in the past have been reasonable, but it certainly is not now: that “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer...[to] the difficult question of when [constitutionally protectable human] life begins.” So therefore “We need not resolve” the question!
49½ years later, Dobbs v. Jackson said almost the same stupid thing, with a lot less grounds for such breathtaking ignorance:
“our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”
Babies need grownups to set facts before courts that will wean them off their apathy about mass murder.

[9] More about “For other public issues, division is over facts.”
Climate Change activists treat it as an emergency which is significantly affected by human activity. Their opponents say climate change is in fact no emergency, and even if it were, human activity has negligible impact on it. Both sides rely on “science”. (Of course pollution harms our health and quality of life, especially in the locality of the pollution, but most of that doesn’t measurably affect climate.)
CRT controversy is entirely over facts. A very different set of facts of American history competes sometimes violently with the
Immigration policy is a tug of war between claims of groups like NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies that so much immigration drives up prices, drives down wages, destroys national security, etc. and peer-reviewed economics studies claiming slight economic benefit to citizens at most levels, from a slight increase in immigration.
Division over covid was all about facts. Masks work, no they don’t. Vaccines save lives, no they cause millions of “excess deaths”.
Can boys who want to be girls join girls sports team and compete fairly? Concern for Biblical morality is in the background, but the public arguing is over the factual differences between boy and girl bodies, and how much of that is equalized by drugs and surgeries.
Legalization of marijuana starts and sputters as facts emerge and are alleged about the impact on crime, auto accidents, on the health of users, and on the impact on holding down a job, which affects the whole economy.

[10] More about “Disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and those who don't care about facts.”
See Finding #2.
Abortion controversy knows no comparable issue-driving dispute over whether babies of humans are real humans. There are practical difficulties in writing a “life of the mother” exception that will leave doctors free to save mothers who are truly endangered by their pregnancies without creating a loophole which babykillers will exploit, but there is no factual controversy about the full humanity of both mothers and their babies.
The fact is that there is no disagreement over the facts about preborn human life. The division is between authorities who rule babies are people, and courts and baby killers who say they don’t care about the facts. That should be very persuasive to simply point that out, both to the public and in court. The result we should expect is for courts to outlaw abortion, and for the vast majority of the public to become revolted by baby murders.
Especially to the extent prolifers and lawmakers publicly acknowledge the love and guidance of God, the deeper part of the Bible- and Constitution-based strategy laid out later in this book.
And most especially if Bible believers study and support the transfer of rights protection from courts to Congress, as laid out in the 14th Amendment, Section 5, as explained by Justice Clarence Thomas in several dissents and concurrences, including in Dobbs v. Jackson, and reviewed later in this book with the assistance of several Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs.
Unfortunately prolife legislatures have not cited this overwhelming evidence in court. Some litigants cite the expertise of new authorities that have not yet been tested in court, but not the tested evidence. This is a powerful resource that prolifers should use. In both kinds of courts.

[11] More about "Courts that won’t address the facts that...necessitate a law...has no legitimate jurisdiction to review that law."
Thus courts have no business reviewing abortion laws, for as long as they refuse to address the irrefutable evidence that babies of people are people. Such a court’s only legitimate business is to enforce them.
But is that what Dobbs v. Jackson has already done? Hasn’t SCOTUS gotten out of the abortion business and allowed states to outlaw abortion as thoroughly as their voters will permit?
Maybe SCOTUS will stay out of the way of saving lives. We should not assume they will stay out of the way when “life of the mother” exceptions come before them, where the right of mothers to live is not balanced by the right of babies to live because states are still not irrefutably establishing the full humanity of babies, while also not clearly defining the degree of danger to a mother where the doctor may remove the child without legal consequences.
Meanwhile state courts, even in prolife states, remain solidly in the way of saving lives, defying Dobbs which said courts should not block the choice of voters. Yet neither will state courts address the fact which justifies abortion restrictions: babies are people. Nor will state lawmakers, so far as I have read, and so far as my own conversations with lawmakers have accomplished, make that a central defense. Those courts have no business blocking prolife laws for as long as they dodge the fact which demands them.
Now let’s consider longer range strategy, of how to get courts to outlaw abortion even in “blue states” (where abortion-supporting Democrats hold the majority). Blue state courts won’t have any prolife laws to overturn. How can a case even be brought into a “blue state” court?
One possible way to get courts to outlaw abortion in blue states is for a red state to sue a blue state for slaughtering its citizens. A controversy between states goes directly to SCOTUS, as provided in the Constitution.
Another way would be if blue states still try to prosecute life savers for “sidewalk counseling” or for blocking doors, and the defendants raise these defenses. Prolife defendants have consistently made the humanity of babies central to their defense, but the arguments here are stronger than I have seen raised in any court.
The way provided in the Constitution is that courts stay out of deciding which humans get to murder and which must be slaughtered, but let Congress enact a “remedial” law (not a “substantive” law) and demand courts exercise their constitutional role of enforcing it.
Short of that, an indirect way abortion would be outlawed even in blue states through these arguments is simply that as they prevail in red states, they will educate lawmakers, judges, and the public, until hearts soften and murder becomes unthinkable again, and the Democrat party retires to “the ash heap of history”.
The same principles apply to freedom of religious expression which courts outlaw, calling it “establishment of religion”. Statements that are true should never be prosecuted, no matter how much they favor the Bible. Courts have no business challenging Christian expression if they are unwilling to investigate evidence of whether the Bible is true, and whether the human statements based on the Bible are true.
Will this open the floodgates to pagan expression?
No, if the argument is made in court that the principles of the Bible are the outline of American law and freedoms, that no other religion or philosophy supports the fundamentals of our laws and freedoms, and that our government has a legitimate government interest in facilitating support for its own existence and for avoiding support for ideologies hostile to our laws and freedoms.
More about this in the final section of this book, complete with SCOTUS precedents, Justice Thomas dissents, and nuggets from the 140 Amici who filed briefs in Dobbs v. Jackson.
This is not a call for government censorship, but for driving hostile ideologies out of schools and subsidies, and making Freedom’s enemies pay for their own attacks.
It will not close down discussion, but open the American Freedom forum wide, where Christians will be free to defend themselves and the public – and our children in public schools – will hear both sides. Maybe Christians will finally turn their gatherings into their own media as the Bible calls for.

[12] More about “US. v. Caroline Products”
US. v. Caroline adds that the evidence in support of a law doesn’t have to be overwhelming: “....the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. ...But by their very nature such inquiries, where the legislative judgment is drawn in question, must be restricted to the issue whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it.” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938)
This is a fair explanation of the “rational basis” test by which courts evaluate laws that restrict non-fundamental rights. When rights are called “fundamental”, (an arbitrary classification according to Justice Thomas’ quotes later in this book), then “strict scrutiny” is the courtroom standard, by which judges are more skeptical of claims made about facts by court-recognized fact finders. Roe ruled that abortion is a “fundamental” right in 1973, but it lost that status in 1982 with Casey, and Dobbs blew away the last traces of it.
Not that the evidence of court recognized fact finders, the power of legislative findings, and the general power of laws to shape court rulings, should be necessary to inform judges as if they were otherwise helplessly ignorant. The fact that this evidence and argument has not been before the Supreme Court does not excuse justices for ruling as if they had never heard it.
True, it is considered unethical for judges to investigate facts on their own; they should normally limit their review of facts to those facts presented by the parties to the case, where the other side has an opportunity to respond. And no state law which has been reviewed by SCOTUS has asked for abortion to be outlawed because it murders little humans, so technically their ignorance, breathtaking as it is, can be excused.
But even without formal presentations of this evidence, the fact that little people are still people falls under “common knowledge”, of which judges frequently, and quite ethically, “take judicial notice”.
Besides, this kind of evidence has been presented in court – in cases which the Supreme Court chose not to hear. And even those cases which SCOTUS turned down placed legal briefs in the record which were read by at least some of the clerks of the justices.
So the justices are not that innocent. Their ignorance is willful.
Still, prolifers share some of the blame for tiptoeing around Casey so long. Casey told states that no abortion restriction could be “constitutional” that had, for any part of its purpose, the reduction of abortion. Casey barred any restriction that “has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Planned Parenthood v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992)
Thus, while lawmakers told prolife voters their laws were designed to reduce abortion as much as courts would let them, their argument in court avoided any suggestion that babies of people are people, in order to cover up their crime of caring.
Thus states deliberately kept evidence out of court that babies of people are people, for most of abortion’s half century. And again, judges think it is unethical to rule according to evidence submitted by neither party to a case. (They way they ruled in Roe.)
Yet even today, after Casey is overturned and states are specifically invited by SCOTUS to outlaw abortion is much as voters will permit, I still read courtroom defenses that don’t mention the reason for outlawing abortion: that babies are people, which makes abortion murder. Why? Is it just 30 years of Casey-inspired habit?

[13] More about “ 'Unborn victims of violence laws of 38 states...[have survived] many challenges"
Wikipedia tells us that not only have these laws been challenged many times in court and have always survived, (challenges “...have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts”), but also that abortionists and Democrats don’t quite understand how legal abortion has been able to survive the passage of these laws! They can hardly believe their good fortune, that even though these laws establish the unborn as “14th Amendment ‘persons’”, prolifers have still not cited them in court in support of outlawing abortion. Here is the Wikipedia excerpt:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most abortion-rights organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person", then they would have a constitutional right to life.1 The laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).2 Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.3
Senator John Kerry, who was a main opponent of President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."4
Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade.5
A principle that allows language in law to not conflict with Roe, which logically should trigger Roe's "collapse" clause, was explained in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Until such language becomes the basis for laws that specify penalties for abortion, the issue is not even before the court, of whether or not such language conflicts with Roe, and if so, which should be struck down.6
Representative Jerrold Nadler made a statement in voicing his opposition to a proposed federal law giving prenatal entities certain legal rights. The bill appears to contradict an important premise behind the constitutional right to seek an abortion: prenatal entities are not persons.7 [2]
Footnotes to this Wikipedia excerpt:
1 Roe v. Wade's collapse clause says: “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
2 State Homicide Laws that recognize unborn victims: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
3 Constitutional Challenges to State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws. http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/statechallenges.html
4 Fisher, Brian E. (2014). Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women. New York, NY: Morgan James Publishing. pp. 16. ISBN 9781614488415. https://archive.org/details/abortionultimate0000fish
5 “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Roe v. Wade – Read what these supporters of legal abortion say about ‘fetal homicide’ laws” (PDF). National Right to Life Committee. 2004-02-02. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-04-20. Retrieved 2019-10-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20130420160514/http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/RoeSupportersSpeakUVVA.pdf
6 “...until those courts have applied the...state's view of when life begins...to restrict appellees' [abortionists'] activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Sandra Day O'Connor added in a concurrence, “When the constitutional invalidity of a State's abortion statute actually turns upon the constitutional validity of Roe, there will be time enough to reexamine Roe, and to do so carefully.”
7 Alongi, April (2008-09-01). “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act and its Impact on Reproductive Rights”. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice. 15 (1): 285 – via Scholarly Commons. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol15/iss1/11
Roe is officially overturned anyway, of course. But it may be worth establishing that there is nothing in its rubble, or anywhere else, that could support any undermining of the fact-finding authority of “unborn victims of violence” laws to establish anything less than the full humanty/personhood of the unborn. If you still wonder if the way Roe minimized this evidence makes sense, the remainder of this Note is for you.
Roe said such laws don’t prove lawmakers actually think babies are people: they probably just treat the baby’s death as a loss the way you would treat the loss of a dirt bike. Or of a puppy:
“...some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. ...In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973)

An example of such a lawsuit occurred just three months before the Roe ruling. A car was hit by a Greyhound bus, killing a mother and her 8-1/2 month unborn child. www.masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass354.html. The administrator of their estate sued Greyhound for “wrongful death” of a human being.
Roe’s dismissal of evidence like that doesn’t work for today’s “unborn victims of violence” laws for two reasons:
(1) 28 of the 38 states explicitly state that the premise of their law is the humanity/personhood of the unborn – while saying nothing about the interests of the parents, and
(2) Roe was talking about parents bringing civil lawsuits against people whose negligence had caused the deaths of their unborn children, in which case the parents’ interest was indeed a factor. But unborn victims of violence laws are different: they are criminal charges, brought by county or state prosecutors, to vindicate the states’ interest in protecting life, without asking the parents for permission. And the penalties for killing an unborn baby are the same in 38 states as the penalties for killing the mother. This is not like the parents’ interest in the loss of some inanimate object, like a refrigerator. Or a dog.

[14] More about “ 15 U.S. Senators served on the U.S. Supreme Court” https://www.senate.gov/senators/ Supreme_Court.htm
Congress approves Supreme Court justices. Not only does the Constitution give Congress that power, but Congress is well qualified: it contains many lawyers, many of whom qualify as constitutional scholars. At least that is what presidents have often thought, since 15 U.S. Senators served on the U.S. Supreme Court, not counting those nominated but not approved by the Senate. An example of a qualified Senator today is Ted Cruz, Republican from Texas, who as Texas Attorney General successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Cruz is on a “short list” of Supreme Court candidates published July 22, 2023 by presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-presidential-hopeful-ramaswamy-puts-ted-cruz-and-mike-lee-on-his-supreme-court-list-69655939
Lawmakers are also elected from the same populations that supply jurors.
So now that Congress and 38 states rule that all unborn babies are fully human from fertilization, their ruling on that fact carries at least as much legal weight as what the Supreme Court has ruled. Especially since the Supreme Court declines to rule:
"(22 State Policy Organizations amicus brief filed in Dobbs:) The positivistic [materialistic – the belief that only physical things are real] reduction of persons represented by the Court’s abortion decisions has leavened the law in a way that curtails historic State policies grounded in deference to a given human nature and the common law rights that correspond to that nature.
"By purporting to leave the question of the meaning of persons in the Fourteenth Amendment unanswered, this Court’s holdings requiring States to abandon common and natural law commitments have effectively ratified a diminished view of the human person in law. These holdings have foisted upon the States a denatured anthropological model that prohibits them from ascribing objective meaning, dignity, and value to vulnerable persons.
"The severe distortion of the human person in constitutional caselaw invites systemic effects well beyond the troubled context of abortion. If constitutional precept commands States to treat nascent human life as vacant of meaning and value apart from subjective individual determination or Court authorization, concurrently placed in doubt is the historic understanding of law as constrained by a reality prior to and beyond its coercive impositions. A national abortion-enablement policy is mournful in itself, but does not keep to itself. It corrodes the law altogether. [www.supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185004/20210727112957999_Dobbs Amici brief_FPC_ 7.23.21.pdf]
The pretense that judges can’t tell if babies of humans are humans, maintained by Roe and retained by Dobbs, is a sophistry no longer believable if it ever was. When judges profess greater ignorance than that of children, they should not claim to know better than state legislatures. Nathan Schlueter said nearly the same thing in a way that sounds more scholarly: “We cannot afford to feign skepticism about the personhood of unborn children any more than an earlier age could afford to feign skepticism about the personhood of African-Americans.”
What makes that sophistry as legally absurd as it is spiritually blasphemous is that it plays games with reality. Blacks are people with souls equally loved by God with all other souls; so are babies. To imagine otherwise is as specious as telling the property tax collector that your house is actually a tent. A house is not a tent, and a person is not 3/5 of a person; nor is a person only “potential life”. Nor can either slavery or murder be left for voters to decide whether to keep legal.
Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown, in their amicus in Dobbs, wrote:
"The sophistry at the heart of Roe is that the beginning of human life was ever a subject for speculation ...There was no doubt at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment as to whether the common definition of “person” included preborn persons. One-hundred and fifty years since, medical science has overwhelmingly confirmed this commonly understood inclusion of preborn persons in legal personhood. ...no other so-called constitutional right involves the “the purposeful termination of a potential life.” Yet even in Harris, we see the poison of Roe in the qualifier “potential.” ...By choosing Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968) as the test for legal personhood, this Court can reach a new milestone in the advancement of human rights. ...The Court started from the premise that “illegitimate children are not ‘nonpersons,’” insofar as they are “humans, live, and have their being.” Levy 391 U.S. at 70 (emphasis added). Thus all children who 1)are human, 2) are living, and 3) are in being, are “clearly” persons under the Equal Protection Clause." [www.supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185063/20210727174713396_FINAL_Brown_ Weiskopf_Dobbs_Amicus.pdf]
“Trust” and “Congress” aren’t a perfect fit, but compared to public trust in other human authorities it ranks high, while trust in juries and in experts ranks higher. There is more public scrutiny of the trustworthiness of political authorities more than that of authorities on other subjects because what political authorities rule affects more of us more.
But the willingness of most of society to live by most of the rules imposed by our government is an important measure of society’s trust in its authorities to create rules which mostly conform to reality. Which in turn is an important measure of society’s trust in the expertise of its authorities to grasp reality to a reasonable level.

[15] More about "Juries (Become Authorities)"
The reason juries can “establish” these truths with the kind of authority that is as acceptable to whole societies as other human authorities is that unlike public opinion surveys or petitions, which are normally not admissible evidence of facts in court because popular uninformed opinion is a less stable reservoir of justice, we test jurors for impartiality and educate them with the most qualified expert witnesses we can find.
And the education of jurors does not end with a 500 word article. It continues until both sides run out of evidence. Which can take all day, all week, or even all year. Juries contribute impartiality, and commitment to study as long as necessary, to our search for Truth.
Juries are also less likely to be swayed by scholarly sounding gaslighting. Where there is gaslighting, the opposing attorney is likely to alert jurors to it. And if a legal theory seems seems irrefutable but makes no sense, or seems fundamentally unfair, juries are not bound by law to endorse it.
Juries are sometimes bolder than judges and lawyers to follow the obvious when a judge’s application of the law doesn’t fit the facts or a precedent has an erroneous factual premise.
Unfortunately when states defend their abortion restrictions in court, they have not, so far, cited the consensus of juries in those few early abortion prevention trials in which judges allowed juries to hear the Necessity Defense (the defendants’ action was necessary in order to save lives) and juries acquitted because the defendants were saving lives. This is a powerful resource which prolifers need to use. In both kinds of courts - of Law, and of Public Opinion.

[16] More about “Expert Witnesses are scrutinized by the other side’s experts”
That is a standard that news reporters make a show of meeting, but reporters will (1) talk to a source for an hour and select maybe two sentences for a quote, (2) take the quote as far out of context as necessary to suit the prejudices of the reporter, (3) get the quote wrong, (4) make no public record available of all that was said so readers can double check the accuracy of the report, and (5) cram all that into 300-1,000 words.
News reporters are kind of low on the trust scale, especially after revelations of their cooperation with government censors over recent years, yet are high enough that millions still turn to them to understand the world around them. Expert witnesses rank higher, because they are held to higher standards. Their usual audiences are other experts who can’t be easily fooled
In abortion prevention trials, (where people were prosecuted for trying to save lives by preventing abortion, usually by blocking doors so mothers couldn’t enter to murder their babies), expert witnesses testified that fully human life begins from the first minute, and were never refuted.
But confusing themselves for news reporters, judges censored the expert witnesses, not allowing the juries to hear them, but only letting them testify after sending the jury to another room. Technically, however, they created a public record; a Court Reporter took notes and will convert it into a readable transcript – for several hundred dollars if the testimony isn’t long.
The fact that expert witnesses in abortion prevention trials were never refuted is breathtaking considering that abortionists invest billions in legally attacking prolifers, demonstrating their extremely high motivation to refute prolifers in court to the fullest extent possible. In normal trials, if a litigant argues that the opposing evidence is irrelevant, he will also bring in contrary evidence to show the opposing evidence is also wrong, in case the judge doesn’t agree that it is irrelevant. But in abortion prevention trials the fact that human babies are people was dismissed as irrelevant, while the accuracy of the fact was for all practical purposes conceded, being left unchallenged. Indeed, who could refute it?
Judges. Individual judges who have taken a position, are another category of court-recognized fact finders who agree babies are people.
One reason judges probably have more credibility than news reporters is they at least write a summary of the proceedings, reporting the positions of both sides, in way more detail than news reports. Roe was 65 pages. And anyone can get copies of the legal briefs filed, and if they are rich enough, a transcript of the proceedings. At least records exist, unlike news reporter interviews. (As opposed to talk show guests.)
In the past judges’ rulings were available to anyone by going to a law library, while the briefs of the parties, and the amicus briefs, were unavailable to the public. That gave judges’ version of cases the only version the public saw. Before computers, there was only one paper copy of each record, in lower courts. The public was allowed to inspect them there in the recorder’s office, but not to remove them. Although prosecutors could take them out of the office. One prosecutor actually admitted in court that he destroyed records in my friend’s file to deny him the opportunity to seek relief. He was not punished.
Rulings are much easier today to find online, but now SCOTUS makes the entire docket (record) available online, and lower courts are moving in that direction.
Today the Polk County Courthouse has docket filings on its computers, which the public can view, and can print off for a charge.
When the Sixth Amendment “right to counsel” was added to our Constitution, hiring on as a human copying machine for a lawyer was one of the ways people studied law to become lawyers.
Am I rambling?

[17] More about “court-recognized fact finders are...respected in...the Court of Public Opinion.”
Juries, 2023, August 28: “Nearly 60% of Americans say they have at least a fair amount of trust in juries, according to a new survey — higher than for any other group in the judicial system. But that trust may soon be put to the test, as former President Donald Trump appears to be headed for multiple trials in the coming year. When asked specifically about Trump’s upcoming trials, a majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — said they did not think the courts would be able to seat impartial jurors.” - New York Times, Americans still trust juries
News reporters, 2021, October 8: “36 percent of survey respondents say they trust the press to report the news fully, fairly, and accurately (down from 40 percent who said the same last year)....29 percent have ‘not very much’ trust in media and 34 percent ‘none at all.’ ” Gallup poll, reported in Reason, Trust in media...near record lows
Judges, 2022, September 29: “Trust in the judicial branch of the federal government has fallen by 20% since 2021.... The poll showed that only 47 % of respondents expressed ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of trust in the judicial branch....(Trust among) Democrats...fell from 50% in 2021 to 25% in 2022, while independents’ trust fell by 5% to 46%. Republicans, by contrast, saw their confidence in the judiciary rise to 67%....In 2000, during the Bush v. Gore case about that year’s presidential election, trust in the judiciary was at 75%, a full 28% higher than it is currently.”
As for the Supreme Court, “58% disapproved of their performance, a record high, while 40% approved, a record low.” Republican confidence in SCOTUS got a boost from Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “Additionally, the judiciary has reversed several policy initiatives by the Biden administration. These include the federal mandate to wear masks on transportation (Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden) and the federal vaccine mandate on private businesses (NFIB v. OSHA). - Gallup.com, Trust in judicial branch sinks to new low
State Legislatures & Governors, 2018, September: The first percentage is the trust level among whites; the second is that among blacks: state legislature, 47/40%; governor, 48/39%; state courts, 57/42%; local police, 70/39%; SCOTUS, 56/44%; Congress, 22/31%; President, 40/2%! - Black Trust in U.S. Legislatures, by Earnest Dupree III and John R. Hibbing, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Online Library

[18] More about “Dobbs dodged whether human babies are people.”
SCOTUS only reviewed cases that did not raise “babies are people” as a reason to outlaw abortion, beginning with Doe v. Israel, 1973, (in which Rhode Island raised that defense but SCOTUS declined to hear the case – “cert denied”) and ending with Dobbs v. Jackson, 2022, in which Mississippi’s Attorney General never gave that as a reason to overturn Roe.
Mississippi said babies are real people, but deliberately refused to give that as a reason for outlawing their extermination in every state.
Although Mississippi’s lawmakers added evidence of the humanity of babies in their Findings of Facts, the brief of the Attorney General gave every other reason for overturning Roe, and explicitly denied, in oral arguments, that SCOTUS should outlaw baby killing (in every state).
Outlawing baby murder (in every state) wasn’t even considered in oral arguments. Not in the December 1, 2021 oral arguments did any justice entertain such a radical idea as outlawing baby murder – nor did Mississippi’s Attorney General, even after the AG boldly said, and no one disagreed: abortion is “the purposeful termination of a human life”, “Roe and Casey...have no basis in the Constitution. They...adopt a right that purposefully leads to the termination of now millions of human lives.” “I think this Court in Gonzales pretty clearly recognized that before viability, we are talking, with unborn life, with a human organism.” Justice Alito even added, “the fetus has an interest in having a life”. (Which is weaker than had he said “preborn babies have a fundamental right to life.”)
And yet when Justice Kavanaugh asked the AG, “And to be clear, you're not arguing that the Court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this Court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion as I understand it, correct?” the AG answered, “Correct, Your Honor.”
Dobbs explicitly acknowledged the central issue, and immediately explicitly declined to address it:
There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was instead spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being. Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point....One may disagree with this belief (and our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests), but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith of abortion opponents. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850 (“Men and women of good conscience can disagree . . . about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stage”). DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265

Indeed this same judicial willful blindness to the only issue that really matters distinguished Roe and Casey, just as Dobbs reports – and not just the majority opinion but even the dissents of the conservatives! Here is Scalia's, White's, and Thomas’s dissent in Casey, followed by a statement from Roe:

Casey dissent: The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its “balancing” [between women’s “privacy” and “potential life”] is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1992) (Concurrence/dissent of Scalia, White, Thomas)

Roe: “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer...[to] the difficult question of when [constitutionally protectable human] life begins.” So therefore “We need not resolve” the question!... “[Prolifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortionist’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th]Amendment. The [abortionist] conceded as much on reargument.

;“...we would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion...if [we had known that] the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.”

What fact can be more central to an abortion case, than that babies are people, which makes killing them murder? Yet for 50 years and still counting, even SCOTUS’ most conservative justices seem determined, if not personally, ethically, and religiously invested, in ignoring that “elephant in the room”.
They are not alone: the same willful blindness reigns in the Court of Public Opinion. And even in many churches.
Therefore this obstacle to saving lives needs to be taken seriously. Satan has set up headquarters there. Every effort must be taken by legislatures to make “it’s a baby” the central, inescapable issue in court, and Findings of Facts must not only prove clear and irrefutable to judges but just as clear and irrefutable in the Court of Public Opinion.
SCOTUS was never challenged (in any case it took) to see babies as people. From a post at Personhood.org: “Since Roe, the Supreme Court has not been presented with a challenge concerning the legal status of the personhood of an unborn human being (as the reason to outlaw abortion) . Instead, the cases have centered on a multitude of state regulations that are designed to sway a woman’s choice, or chill a physician’s willingness to provide abortion services.” (https://personhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lugosi-The-Constitutionality-of-Personhood.pdf) Well, that’s almost true. SCOTUS has been presented with such cases, but has declined to hear them.
I don’t know if any state law presented such a case, since Rhode Island in 1973.
So why? Why have state legislatures dodged “it’s a baby” in their prolife laws, just as rigorously as SCOTUS ignores that central issue?
The most plausible answer I can think of for legal abortion’s first 19 years was the sophistry of Federal Judge Pettine’s smackdown of Rhode Island’s 1973 abortion ban. More details later, but he characterized Roe as saying it didn’t matter if babies are in fact people, because Roe made babies non-people “as a matter of law”. As a later Statement of Fact demonstrates, that sophistry the opposite of what Roe said, and the opposite of what the 14th Amendment provides. But in all those years I am unaware of a challenge to that sophistry.
Casey established an additional reason for states to not dare mention the “Elephant in the Womb”. Er, room. Casey, 1992, said no state law can “substantially” restrict abortion, OR have for its purpose ANY reduction of abortion. That intimidated prolife states into crafting prolife laws which did NOT substantially reduce abortion, and which were justified by some other “legitimate government purpose” than saving lives. For example, keeping the murder rooms clean, keeping an accurate count of the number of murders, or informing moms that they were about to become murderers.
Those “legitimate government purposes” became SCOTUS-approved. But not “saving lives”. So evidence that stopping the slaughter of babies was irrelevant; in fact, fatal to a defense, since it would have betrayed that part of the state’s purpose was to reduce the murders!
An example of how far states went to accommodate Casey was Iowa’s heartbeat bill. Prolifers were told it would eliminate almost all abortions since the age where a heartbeat is detectable is almost the age where a mom knows she has a baby. But in district court, obviously trying to dodge Casey, attorney Martin Cannon actually told the judge the law would not stop one single abortion; it would merely pressure mothers to hurry up and find out whether they are pregnant so they can murder their babies before we are sure they are “persons”! (See Iowa Heartbeat Arguments)
Rhode Island in 1973. Since Roe had alleged ignorance about the unborn because “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense”, the Rhode Island legislature offered to school the Court.
Texas AG Wade had said human babies are people, but it wasn’t explicit in Texas law. It was only a courtroom argument of an Attorney General. So Rhode Island enacted that recognition in law, so SCOTUS would know. Rhode Island’s law had a strong statement that unborn babies are persons, and strong criminal penalties for aborting them. Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193 (1973). Doe v. Israel, 1 Cir., 1973, 482 F.2d 156. SCOTUS declined to hear the case. Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993.
Federal Judge Pettine ruled, “The Rhode Island legislature apparently read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade to leave open the question of when life begins and the constitutional consequences [**12] thereof.” Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1199 (1973)
Pettine didn’t just respond “well, that’s a little more of the ‘establishment’ courts will need before we outlaw abortion again, but that’s still not enough.” He went far beyond SCOTUS, saying all the evidence in the world was irrelevant:
“I neither summarize nor make any findings of fact as to their testimony [about whether unborn babies of human mothers are humans/persons]. To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. ... I find it all irrelevant....” Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1197
Judge Pettine, and he wasn’t alone, thought it irrelevant that human babies are in fact people, even though “of course”, to use Roe’s phrase, that fact makes killing them legally recognizable as murder.
If Roe didn’t treat Life as “a question of fact”, but of law, how did doctors and preachers become more qualified to “answer” the “question”, according to Roe, than SCOTUS? Roe said the court was “in no position to speculate as to the answer” because, supposedly, doctors and preachers don’t agree, not that the answer was irrelevant. Roe said the answer was not only relevant, it was dispositive: once “established”, it must “of course” end legal abortion.
Doe continues: “It is true that the Court in Wade and Bolton did not attempt to decide the point ‘when human life begins.’ No reading of the opinions, however, can be thought to empower the Rhode Island legislature [alone] to ‘defin[e] some creature as an unborn child, to be a human being and a person from the moment of its conception.’” Doe v. Israel
Legislatures establish facts. Since when does a state legislature need SCOTUS to “empower” them to establish facts? Normally courts respect findings of facts by legislatures. See Statement of Facts #2. Doe continues: “Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton can [not] be nullified by the simple device of a legislative declaration or presumptions contrary to the court's holding.” Doe v. Israel
“Device”? Correction of a precedent’s “erroneous factual premise” officially removes its Stare Decisis protection. Normally.
Roe’s holding had a condition. Rhode Island met it. Roe’s holding was premised on Roe’s version of history in which no court-recognized legal authority had established precisely the fact which Rhode Island stepped forward to establish. That is, Roe put an implied condition on its holding: that no future authority, such as a legislature, would do what Rhode Island did.
The Rhode Island legislature is a court-recognized finder of facts. The only thing Roe didn’t clarify was how much establishment, by how many fact finders, was “enough” establishment to satisfy the court.
But now that issue is gone. There can be no more “establishment” of any fact than the uncontested consensus of every court-recognized fact finder that took a position, in all five categories of court-recognized fact finders. If Roe was correct, that “establishment” was possible, then “establishment” has been accomplished. If the unanimous – uncontested – finding of every court-recognized fact-finder is not enough “establishment” for the court to know a fact, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.
This challenge is not just to judges. It is to anyone who thinks abortion ought to remain legal.
I challenge them to squarely address the easily documented evidence that every American legal authority that has ruled on “when human life begins” has ruled that Life begins “at the beginning”, which makes babies as fully human as blacks were two centuries ago, which makes killing babies legally recognizable as murder, which no state can be allowed to legalize any more than any state can legalize slavery.

[19] More about “Lower courts said Roe made babies non-persons ‘as a matter of law’, (making the fact that babies are people ‘irrelevant’!)”
State appellate precedents falsely insist SCOTUS made babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”, making “when life [in fact] begins” irrelevant, so therefore evidence that babies are real people should not even be allowed in court, in trials of prolifers charged with blocking the doors of baby killers to save the lives of babies being brought in to be murdered. Juries must judge only whether doors were blocked, and ignore whether lives were saved.
It began in 1973 with Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193: “To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. ... I find it all irrelevant....” (See previous footnote.)
Whatever happened to “trial by jury”?
This became the excuse for judges to not even let juries – the official “finders of facts” in jury trials – hear evidence in thousands of abortion prevention trials about the only fact that mattered: that the unborn babies saved by blocking abortionist doors were in fact people. See City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993), in which the Kansas Supreme Court reviews several other state supreme court precedents. (For 7 pages of my analysis of "Errors in abortion prevention cases", especially featuring Tilson, see Appendix F, page 84 of my book "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".)
When defendants argued in court that it was “necessary” to commit the lesser harm of trespassing by sitting in front of the killing doors to prevent the greater harm of baby killing, courts asked how baby killing could be legally recognizable as harmful at all, being a “constitutional right”?
Courts in door blocking cases borrowed Judge Pettine’s trick of accusing Roe of making the issue “a matter of law”, which makes the FACT that babies are people “irrelevant”. Therefore juries, the official “Finders Of Facts”, weren’t allowed to even know about the Necessity Defense, even though that defense was usually the only defense in such cases, based on the only contested fact, and supposedly defendants have a right to “trial by jury”. How is it a “trial by jury” when the judge decides the only contested issue of a trial and doesn’t even allow the jury to know the defendant’s only defense? Even when the only contested issue is about a fact? (See my entertaining video about this featuring humor and children, at “Trial By Jury 5-part video”, at http://saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm)
The error: Roe never made abortion an absolute, unconditional right, immune from reality. The error in those precedents was thinking Roe made abortion an absolute constitutional right, whose factual premise could never be challenged.
Actually an erroneous factual premise is an official exception to Stare Decisis, [the courtroom doctrine that makes future rulings mostly follow past rulings] and Roe had explicitly made “constitutional protection” of abortion subject to the “establishment” of unborn “personhood”, which Roe treated as a fact question about which the justices were “unable to speculate...at this point in the development of man’s knowledge”, which therefore was an invitation to future fact finding. Yet in tens of thousands of abortion prevention cases, the only disputed fact was whether the lives saved were of human persons, yet the Finders of Facts were not allowed to know the issue existed, nor were allowed to hear the doctors and geneticists brought in by the defendants – the expert witnesses, to testify to the fact that babies of people are genuine people. The judged ruled on the only contested fact and kept the evidence secret from the jury. Yet the charade was called “Trial by Jury”!!!
Since Dobbs, abortion is no longer “constitutionally protected”, but SCOTUS has still not refuted the reality-denying theory that babies are nonpersons “as a matter of law”.
Therefore these lingering lower court precedents – there are many of them – need to be addressed.
Here are the cases reviewed in Appendix F of the book linked above, with just a single statement from each, to show their inconsistency with SCOTUS rulings:
1. “The rationale utilized by ‘[t]he majority of courts. . . [was] that because abortion is a lawful, constitutionally protected act, it is not a legally recognized harm which can justify illegal conduct.’” City of Wichita v. Tilson, 855 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1993).
Finding #8 responds to this. Slavery, too, was constitutionally protected, according to the Supreme Court, and it still was as punishment for a crime in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. The way that Amendment ended slavery applies as well to babies. The fact that babies are people is what matters; what is irrelevant is legal recognition of that fact. The fact that babies are people makes killing them legally recognizable as the ultimate harm: murder, which no state can legalize, and which legally justifies almost any conduct that can stop it.
2. “Appellants may not criminally interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights by others, and then escape punishment for their criminal conduct by asserting the defense of necessity....A pregnant woman’s decision to exercise her right under the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California to terminate a pregnancy is not and cannot be held to be a ‘significant evil.’” People v. Garziano 230 Cal. App. 3d 242, 244 (1991)
Murder can never be a constitutional right. Saving people from murderers can never be “criminal conduct”. No mother can have any legal, much less constitutional right to murder her baby human. Roe v. Wade never said there is any constitutional right to abortion even in the face of conclusive evidence that babies are people, and even if SCOTUS is guilty of such genocide, such a ruling is unconstitutional, being in violation of the 14th Amendment which, as Roe said, protects the Right to Life of even little people.
Lower court judges are more bloodthirsty than Roe. Roe was neutral on whether murdering babies is evil. Roe said “of course” abortion will need to be outlawed if it is “established” that babies are people. “Indeed,...we would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.” – Roe v. Wade at 159. By contrast, this lower supreme court won’t let the fact finders even know about the defense, lest we find out that human babies are people.
In those thousands of “Rescue the babies” trials, it was a perpetual prayer and struggle to somehow communicate our defense to the jury, which judges were determined to censor. Such as saying before the judge could stop us, in front of the jury, with words that would not simply harden the jury against us, “Shouldn’t the jury be allowed to hear my defense?” Such strategies seldom if ever succeeded.
3. “If the legislature cannot delegate a ‘veto power’ to the patient’s ... spouse .... we think it unlikely that a state court could delegate such a ‘veto power’ to strangers [the jury], to be exercised in such an obtrusive manner.” Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073, 1080 n. 15 (1981) Juries, not spouses, are court-recognized fact finders. Murder is not a “personal decision” whose legality is determined by the family of the murderer. It needs to be determined by reality.
4. “...the ‘injury’ prevented by the acts of criminal trespass is not a legally recognized injury.” People v. Krizka, 92 IILApp.3d 288, 48 III.Dec. 141, 416 N.E.2d 36.
The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to overturn laws which deprived genuine human people of their God-given, unalienable rights. Therefore, by definition, what was “legal” and “criminal” was made subject to rights spelled out by God. The Bible validates common sense: babies have conscious souls before as well as after birth, making them just as “human” as any judge, making abortion legally recognizable as murder. Laws which violate the Constitution and the Laws of God make any judge a criminal who enforces them.
Remember that court quote is the judge’s excuse for not allowing the jury to even know what the defendant’s defense is. Yet The defense rests on a fact: babies of humans are humans.
Juries are supposed to be court-recognized fact finders. Yet defendants were censored from telling juries the fact that the trial was about. How is it a “trial by jury” when a judge decides the central question of the case and strictly forbids the jury from even learning what that question is?
In those very few trials where defendants were allowed to tell juries about the Necessity Defense, their verdict was that abortion is in fact murder. Murder is not constitutionally protected. It is not “criminal” to save lives.
5. “Abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not a legally recognized harm, and, therefore, prevention of abortion is not a legally recognized interest to promote.” State v. Sahr, 470 N.W.2d at 191-192.
You judges are not the fact finders in jury trials. “Trial by jury” was not created because juries are smarter than judges, but because they are more honest. And not too intimidated by ossified legal rhetoric to see the obvious.
Not only that, but the judicial dishonesty that necessitated juries was more about law than facts, when the Magna Carta resurrected juries from the Bible. (Called “judges” in the KJV.)
Why did you judges censor juries? Because you knew their verdict. That babies are people, which makes killing them murder, and, therefore, prevention of murder IS a legally recognized interest to promote, which righteous people have every legal right and Biblical duty to do. (Proverbs 24:10-12) The only way you could say otherwise was by taping shut the mouths of greater authorities than yourselves, who earned their greater authority by their greater honesty.
6. “...the justification defense [is still] unavailable because abortion is lawful by virtue of the United States Constitution.” Allison v. City of Birmingham, 580 So. 2d 1377 (1991)
See Finding #8. No reading of the Constitution can logically legalize abortion without legalizing slavery.The Constitution has to be repealed, to make abortion lawful.
SCOTUS is not the Constitution. Any judge who can’t tell the difference between SCOTUS and the Constitution needs a transfer to traffic court.
7. “...the defense of necessity asserted here cannot be utilized when the harm sought to be avoided (abortion) remains a constitutionally protected activity and the harm incurred (trespass) is in violation of the law.” State v. O’Brien, 784 S.W.2d 187, 192 (1989)
This ruling violates Roe by not allowing fact-finders to “establish” what Roe said “of course” would transfer constitutional protection from baby killers to babies.
8. “Because the harm sought to be prevented is not recognized as an injury under the law, the defense of necessity is insufficient as a matter of law and the court properly refused to allow the defendant to raise it.” State v. Clarke, 24 Conn.App. 541, 590 A.2d 468, cert. denied 219 Conn. 910, 593 A.2d 135 (1991)
“Cert. denied” means this was appealed to the Supreme Court but the Court declined to hear it. Tens of thousands of arrests, thousands of jury trials where the “triers of facts” were not allowed to hear the only contested fact of the trial, which was a dispositive fact, and the Supreme Court refused to hear a single appeal of that wholesale violation of the constitutional right to “trial by jury”.

[20] More about (If babies are people we can’t murder them was) a holding which no court has disputed
Excerpt from Footnote #1, Finding #1 by Schluetter: “of those Justices on the Supreme Court who have urged reversing Roe , not one...attempted to make or even respond in their opinions to the unborn person interpretation.” [In other words, even though not even the most liberal justices have denied that babies are real people, yet not even the most conservative justices consider the indisputable evidence worth mentioning.]
Dobbs v. Jackson, which overruled Roe in 2022, likewise left Roe’s hypothetical in place, 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....”

[21] More about “The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded 'conceded’ that ‘if...personhood is established’, then the ‘case’ for legal abortion ‘collapses’”
Read it for yourself at Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-157 (1973)
(Case citation explanation: In italics are the two parties to the controversy – the plaintiff, who sued, and the defendant, who was sued. “410” means the 410th book in the wall full of thick books titled “U.S. Reports”, which is a copy of all the SCOTUS rulings since SCOTUS was created by the U.S. Constitution. “113” is the page number where the ruling begins. Pages 156-157 are where the quote is found.)
“The Roe Court demurred on the central inquiry. [They objected to its relevance, as if saying “so what?”] 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. [Page 159-60 in the Roe ruling is where the ruling passed] on “the difficult question of when life begins,” referencing differing belief systems). Wary of decreeing the precise moment of life, whether at conception, birth, or some time in between, the Roe Court rejected life as a marker and settled on viability as [the]way to denote the State’s interest.” (Amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by Center for Religious Expression www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185542/20210802162418144_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Center%20for%20Religious%20Expression.pdf)

[22] More about “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 v Jackson, 945 F. 3d 265, 597 US _ (2022)
(Hmmm. No page numbers given.)

[23] More about “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 didn’t say that even in the face of irresistible evidence that the littlest humans are fully human, voters should still decide whether to keep murdering them.
Dobbs does not say either that (1) it is impossible or impermissible for “abortion kills a human being” to graduate from a “sincere belief” to a “fact”; or that (2) even if that fact is established, that won’t make abortion legally recognizable as murder; or that (3) even after abortion is legally recognizable as murder, voters should still get to decide whether to keep it legal. For further analysis of Dobbs see my review at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Troubling_Excerpts_&_Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson
But Justice Kavanaugh came close. So his reasoning needs to be understood and corrected.
His logic, in his Dobbs Concurrence, fully rejects “equal protection of the laws” for little humans. By his logic, my “view” of your human worth to me must dictate whether it is legal for me to kill you. If you interfere with my “personal and professional life”, you need to go.
No exaggeration. He actually wrote that the abortionist morality of killing babies to improve “women’s personal and professional lives [to] achieve greater freedom” is equivalent to the prolife morality of “all life should be protected”. He thinks both “interests” show equal “good faith”.
He said that as he criticized the one or two of the 140 Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs that said that since babies are people, killing them should be outlawed. He wrote,
“Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion. “The Constitution does not grant the nine unelected Members of this Court the unilateral authority to rewrite the Constitution to create new rights and liberties based on our own moral or policy views.”

Well no, we don’t want America shackled to Kavanaugh’s moral or policy views. But America would be blessed to have him rule based on reality.
Kavanaugh writes, “The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion....a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in American history and tradition....”
Thank you for noticing. Let us pray for the day you will notice that the converse is true according to Dobbs’ own review of 50 early court rulings and laws, though Dobbs didn’t point this out: the right of babies to live IS “deeply rooted in American history and tradition”. Although...
“Deeply rooted in American history and tradition” is a stupid, cruel criteria for whether to protect a fundamental right.
“Deeply rooted in American history and tradition” is a silly basis for recognizing a right as fundamental, and a cruel basis for legalizing genocide. By that criteria, treated as so important by court precedents and legal scholars, slavery should never have ended, because freedom for all blacks was certainly not “deeply rooted in American history and tradition”! This silly criteria is a distraction from what DOES matter: the FACT that babies are people, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder.
SCOTUS should have noticed by now, and corrected, its selective, agenda-serving inconsistency. SCOTUS certainly didn't overturn Texas' sodomy laws, or require states to respect sodomite marriage, because civil rights for sodomites including "marriage" are "deeply rooted in American history and tradition"!

(Amicus of LONANG Institute filed in Dobbs v. Jackson:) "Denying the textual meaning of legal words is not a novel invention of the Court. Instead, it has historical precedent going back to the first recorded case in human history. At issue in that case, In Re: Adam, Eve & the Devil, 3 Genesis 1 (0001), was the intent and meaning of a statute prohibiting consumption of fruit from a specific tree in a Garden in Eden. A statute prohibiting such consumption was at issue. Two of the parties violated the statute and entered a guilty plea. A second statute prohibited various forms of fraud and deception. A third party was charged under this statute alleging he used deception to induce co-defendants to consume the prohibited fruit.

"At trial, he argued that he was not liable on the theory that the first statute did not actually prohibit consumption—that the words in the statute did not mean what the text declared. [Plausible but not recorded interaction between God and Satan. That is probably how Satan argued then, or at least would have argued had not The Judge imposed an in limine restriction on defending himself at all after Eve accused him, because that is how his servants still argue today.] As such he argued that he did not engage in deceit in his statements to the other parties. The Court was unpersuaded. It rejected the argument, finding that the prohibition was clear and unambiguous, reflected the drafter’s original intent and was, therefore, enforceable as written.

"This Court’s fourteenth amendment substantive due process jurisprudence is based on the same argument first made in Eden—the words of the law do not mean what they say. The Court has maintained the amendment itself contains a substantive due process clause into which the Court is empowered to pour un-enumerated fundamental rights of its own divination.

"The Court’s atextual adjustments, purportedly limited by the outcomeflexible concept of “judicial restraint,” have been internally justified by its moral appeals to novel high-sounding phrases such as “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 500 (1965)] or the “concept of personal liberty,” [Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)] or “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition,” [Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)] or “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” [Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644; 135 S. Ct. at 2629 (2015) ] Alas, none of these phrases have textual support in the amendment itself. Nor has the Court been granted any state legislative power in Article III to define ordered or personal liberty, individual autonomy, or traipse through history and tradition to discover and append any un-enumerated substantive individual rights into the amendment’s textually non-existent “substantive” due process clause. Nor does the law of nature of judicial review empower this Court to write new Constitutional text. The authority of a judge is to declare what written law already exists. The standard legal maxim is, Jus dicere, et non jus dare, also known as judicis est jus dicere non dare. The province of a judge is to declare the law, not to make it.8 At what point in time and on whose authority did that rule, binding on judges in England and America for centuries, become nonbinding?" tsac Lonang Institute.pdf

(This is a preview of the final section of this book which builds on Justice Thomas's dissents and concurrences in which he traces the history of how SCOtUS transformed Congress' 14th Amendment authority to enforce rights specified in the Constitution into its own authority to enforce rights which it made up by itself.)
The only value of historical laws and precedents is their testimony about the FACT that babies are people, since judges and legislatures are court-recognized fact finders. But today’s fact finders, informed by advances in medical science about when human life begins, at least physically, are better informed.
Back to Kavanaugh: If courts must be silent on murder, what crime is enough greater to merit their involvement? Slavery isn’t a greater crime! Slavery is surely a lesser crime than dismemberment, so if people in “blue states” should vote on whether they can murder by dismemberment, people in Southern states have a far greater right to vote on whether to have slaves! (Although today blacks would not be the likely target for slavery, but rather “illegals”.)
(Although today it is not Southern states most likely to vote for slavery, but “blue states”, since Democrats defended slavery militarily through 1865, terrorized black Republicans for decades past 1865, opposed Martin Luther King’s reforms by wider margins than Republicans in Congress, and today cruelly treat “disloyal” black conservatives like Justice Clarence Thomas. On the other hand “red states” will more likely vote for slavery if those to be enslaved are, instead of blacks, undocumented immigrants. But I digress.)
Kavanaugh thinks it is compelling evidence that not even Scalia, Thomas, or White ever said no state should be allowed to legalize murdering babies because they are people. (...No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. ...) Kavanaugh here explicitly dismisses the only FACTor that matters: not what our ancestors thought, not whether baby killers “argue forcefully”, not what any law, precedent, or even Constitution says: but the FACT that babies are people. That fact, established, makes Kavanaugh seem callous at best and satanic in his regard for human life at worst.

Pretending judges can’t tell if babies of humans are humans, as Roe did, is a sophistry no longer believable if it ever was. When judges profess greater ignorance than that of children, they should not claim to know better than state legislatures.

[24] More about “Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that...this fact, independently of any...future constitutional amendment, dictates whether abortion is legal...”
Professor Nathan Schluetter argued that numerous prolife leaders err in thinking some kind of “Life Amendment” to the Constitution is needed before prolifers can think about outlawing abortion in every state, as if the 14th Amendment, plus all the evidence we now have, isn’t enough. As if meanwhile, justice is so blind that voters will have to decide whether to keep murdering babies, not on the basis of the fact that babies are people, which we supposedly still can’t know, but on the basis of babies’ value to voters! (See Finding #1, Note #1.)
Do you agree with Schluetter and me, that such agnosticism is error? Evil, cruel, God-defying error? Or do you agree with conservative justices and with many top prolife leaders that it is a great thing for voters to decide whether to perpetuate mass murder?
Schluetter’s final paragraph from the more complete excerpt in note 1, Finding #1:
“However well-intentioned, the arguments of the restoration [to voters of the decision whether to legalize murder] advocates [including the conservative SCOTUS justices and several prominent prolife leaders] are usually grounded in an epistemological skepticism that is alien to normal constitutional interpretation and harmful to the political morality on which free government is based.”

[25] More about “'whether abortion is...a right or a crime' [is settled by the fact that babies are people, said Roe, an observation which Dobbs did not challenge]”
Schlueter, in his 2003 debate with Judge Bork, wrote that the reasoning of Roe and Casey “leaves out of the equation” the same thing that Dobbs later left out in 2022:
“the paramount question of the status of the unborn child. The Justices write as if this question can be ignored or constitutes merely a “value judgment” about which reasonable people can disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia himself explicitly asserts this latter position in his dissenting opinion to the Casey decision: ‘There is of course no way to determine that [i.e., whether the human fetus is a human life] 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.’

“But if the status of the unborn child is merely a value judgment, then there is at least a plausible argument that the states have no right prohibiting abortion, especially when one considers the considerable burden an unexpected, unwanted, or dangerous pregnancy can place on a woman. Indeed, Justice Scalia’s arguments have a frightening moral and epistemological agnosticism at their center.”

[26] More about “This established fact is not disestablished by any judge’s claimed inability to understand it.”
“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)

Priests For Life wasn’t awed by what a difficult question that is, or by the Court’s OK with not “resolving” it. PFL introduced the quote with “When deciding Roe v. Wade, this Court infamously stated....” PFL named the religion upon which that apathy about murdering babies is based, and noted the similarity of Roe (which protected baby killers) with Dred Scott v. Sandford (which protected slave owners’ “property rights” to their slaves):

"Consistent with this veiled philosophical pronouncement—a pronouncement grounded in secular positivism—a majority of the justices concluded that the U.S. Constitution “does not define ‘person,’” leading the Court to ultimately conclude that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Id. at 158.
"The Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade is similar to how the Court had previously concluded in the infamous Dred Scott decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)) that people of color were not legal “persons” as a matter of federal constitutional law. Unfortunately, it took a civil war to correct this injustice."

(Actually Scott v. Sandford described slaves as “a class of persons” several times, but denied that they were “people of the United States”, since the Constitution treated that phrase as synonymous with “citizens”, and Africans certainly weren’t “citizens”. I don’t think the 140 page decision noticed the contradiction that blacks were “persons” but not “people” even though they are forms of the same word.)

(Actually Scott v. Sandford described slaves as “a class of persons” several times, but denied that they were “people of the United States”, since the Constitution treated that phrase as synonymous with “citizens”, and Africans certainly weren’t “citizens”. I don’t think the 140 page decision noticed the contradiction that blacks were “persons” but not “people” even though they are forms of the same word. The myth that the words have such different meanings that some people aren't "persons" has been so prevalent among prolifers that I address it in Statement of Fact #8, as well as later in this Statement.)
Roe acknowledged the testimony of only one fact finder: Texas Attorney General Wade. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973) (Although Dobbs later corrected Roe’s history with 50 examples of earlier state laws and court rulings. See Appendix A, with footnotes #69-119, DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 945 F. 3d 265, 597 US _ (2022)

[27] More about “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.”
“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)

Is pagan dehumanization of vulnerable people groups our new model for American law, instead of “All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”? Dehumanization by pagan religions and nations extends also to immigrants, women, children, “disbelievers”, and anyone who criticizes the government or the government-favored church, or anyone any bureaucrat doesn’t like. And this is what Scalia and Thomas urge?
Professor Schluetter writes,

This “leaves out of the equation the paramount question of the status of the unborn child. The Justices write as if this question can be ignored or constitutes merely a “value judgment” about which reasonable people can disagree....

“But if the status of the unborn child is merely a value judgment, then there is at least a plausible argument that the states have no right prohibiting abortion, especially when one considers the considerable burden an unexpected, unwanted, or dangerous pregnancy can place on a woman. Indeed, Justice Scalia’s arguments have a frightening moral and epistemological agnosticism at their center....

“By making the determination of human life a value judgment, Justice Scalia forecloses the possibility that any scientific proof or rational demonstration can establish that an unborn child is a human being. Indeed, he ultimately forecloses the possibility that there can be any rational discussion of the matter at all, insofar as values by their very nature are subjectively determined.

“Taken to an extreme, as Justice Scalia’s legal positivism in this matter seems to do, democracy becomes the simple exercise whereby the powerful define for themselves their ‘own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of life,’ to use the famous words of the majority opinion in the Casey decision. In such a universe, constitutional government is superfluous. One is strongly reminded of Lincoln’s arguments with respect to slavery: ‘If [the Negro] is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the Negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself ?’ ....

“It cannot be too strongly emphasized that whether or not an unborn child is [in fact] a human being is the critical question in this debate, and the question was definitively answered decades ago. Whatever might be said for an earlier time, today there can be no scientific disagreement as to the biological beginning of human life. Embryology, fetology, and medical science all attest to the basic facts of human growth and development, and medical textbooks for decades have declared that distinct and individual human life begins at conception. Contrary to Justice Scalia’s assertion, this is not a value question any more than that of whether an acorn is an oak tree.” See a debate with Judge Bork. www.firstthings.com/article/2003/01/ constitutional-persons-an-exchange-on-abortion a debate with Judge Bork.

Equal protection of the laws is a principle throughout the Bible but not found in other religions. For example,
Exodus 12:49 (BBE) The law is the same for him who is an Israelite by birth and for the man from a strange country who is living with you.
Leviticus 24:22 You are to have the same law for a man of another nation living among you as for an Israelite; for I am the Lord your God.
Numbers 15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. 16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
Galatians 3:28 (CEV) Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman.
Colossians 3:11 (CEV) It doesn't matter if you are a Greek or a Jew, or if you are circumcised or not. You may even be a barbarian or a Scythian, and you may be a slave or a free person. Yet Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us.

[28] More about “Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human.”
This statement is legally correct, but just for the record, it is a popular misunderstanding that this is what our Constitution actually did to blacks in 1789: classify them as only 3/5 human, as is presumed by this 2010 song whose purpose was to explain history: “Am I just three fifths of a man? Broken back and calloused hands Giving my very life to the land Am I just three-fifths of a man?” Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emcKV9sq7Fc
Clarifying this misunderstanding probably doesn’t contribute to saving babies, but just for the record, not even one fifth of unborn babies or “Indians not taxed” were counted, with no insinuation that they were any less than 5/5 human:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons. - the U.S. Constitution, Section 2, Paragraph 3, 1st sentence.

As you can see, the Census had two purposes, neither of which was related to any dehumanization of blacks. One reason was to calculate each state’s share of taxes it must pay to the federal government. There was no income tax then, so based on their proportionate population, states paid the bill directly, which is why it was called a “Direct Tax”. Southern states didn’t want to count slaves at all for this purpose, so they wouldn’t have to pay very much taxes, while Northern states would have liked to count each slave as 5 people so the Southern states would pay more of the needed taxes! After all, slaves were worth a lot of money!
The other reason for counting people was to give states Congressmen in proportion to their population. So Southern states wanted to count each slave as 10 people so they could have lots of Congressmen, while Northern states (who did have slaves because British governors wouldn’t let states outlaw slavery, but far fewer) wanted to count each slave as zero because they didn’t want Southern states to have any Congressmen, and certainly no more than proportionate to the number of people with political rights.
3/5 was their compromise between those two interests. The Civil War might not have been necessary had the South not had bloated numbers of Congressmen voting to protect slavery. It would have been more just and logical, and it might have saved three quarters of a million lives, to not count any part of the slave population towards apportioning congressmen. But it had nothing to do with how human anyone thought blacks were, and my observation (that slavery might have more peacefully ended had slaves been counted as zero towards giving Southern states more Congressmen) does not mean I regard blacks as not even 3/5 human!
The modern revisionist myth that the 3/5 proportion somehow meant America’s Founders regarded blacks as that much less than human barely occurred, if it did at all, to the people of that time. This is evidenced by the fact that the 3/5 ratio was never mentioned in all 240 pages of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which helped spark the Civil War by ruling that blacks were “persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves” but not “citizens” even if they were free, and thus had zero rights in courts. It did not occur even to those monsters to see validation in that ratio of their fanatical dehumanization of blacks.
Encyclopedia Brittanica reports:

Granting slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their population of enslaved individuals when it came to apportioning representatives to Congress meant that those states would thus be perpetually overrepresented in national politics. However, this same ratio was to be used to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise

[29] More about “The 14th Amendment protects those who are IN FACT people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people ‘as a matter of law’.”
State supreme courts ruled in Operation Rescue-type cases that Roe made babies non-persons “as a matter of law”, so therefore evidence that babies are in fact people was irrelevant, and therefore juries weren’t allowed to know about it. Roe said no such thing, but the opposite: that such evidence would “of course” be dispositive.
Should we use the word “people” vs. the word “persons”?
Prolife grammar got weird when Roe talked about the word “persons” in the 14th Amendment. It has been imagined not only that there is some unfathomable though intimidating difference not only between “persons” and “humans” but also between “persons” and “people”. Only divas with J.D. degrees have a right to understand how these differences truly do justify murdering 70 million babies. It is for the unwashed masses to step back in grateful awe.
We unworthy, insufficiently educated prolifers, though unable to grasp exalted baby killing grammar, and similarly unable to grasp the justice of baby killing, poke around these strange words in our desperate effort to communicate with the divas. Hence our emphasis on using the word “persons” in “personhood” statements and amendments, not, Heaven forbid, the word “people”.
But they are the same word.
I realize what a shock this is to say such a thing. Blasphemy, or something like. But check with a grammar website. They are the same word. The only difference is that “people” is the normal way to talk. “Persons” isn’t. That’s the only difference. That’s the only reason judges talk about “persons”.
Well, that, and the fact that the 14th Amendment used the word “persons” when that word choice was more normal, so when judges and lawyers today talk about it, they quote the same word. Just as we Christians quote the words of the King James Version, even though some of them sound weird, just to be accurate.
Perhaps if we insist on talking normally, despite the social pressure, the divas will retreat from their abnormal usage, seeing it no longer intimidates, no longer shields them from our questions about how murdering 70 million babies can be just.
But you don’t believe me, do you? So here is from a grammar website: [3]
Grammar > Easily confused words > Person, persons or people? from English Grammar Today

We use person in the singular to refer to any human being: “Joel is such a nice person.” “She’s a person I have a lot of respect for.”

Persons (plural) is a very formal word. We only use it in rather legalistic contexts: “Any person or persons found in possession of illegal substances will be prosecuted.”

To refer to groups of human beings or humans in general, we use people: “I saw three people standing on the corner.” (Not: “I saw three persons …” ) “Jim and Wendy are such nice people.” “People are generally very selfish.” “Three people were interviewed for the job, but only one person had the right qualifications and experience.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“b. '''States are increasingly proposing and enacting laws protective of unborn human beings even when abortion is curtailed as a result.'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Today, 43 states have enacted laws protecting prenatal humans although abortion is thereby restricted. All but one restrict abortion access at the earliest point permissible by Roe (viability), and states have recently more emphatically asserted a state interest in the lives of previable human beings by seeking to protect them: (1) after the sixth week since that is known to be the point at which a fetus’ heart first beats (AL HB314; IA SF359) and (2) after the twentieth week since that has been found to''Italic text'' be the point at which a fetus can first feel pain (OH SB 127).”
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;States don’t unanimously protect the unborn, but no state finds that unborn babies are ''not'' human persons. Plus, 38 states is enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Not that they should: as other Findings observe, there is already more than enough consensus of fact finders to require outlawing of abortion in every state; and the consensus of fact finders is actually a stronger legal reason than a constitutional amendment, since no other Amendment was ratified to establish a fact.)    </ref>
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;States don’t unanimously protect the unborn, but no state finds that unborn babies are ''not'' human persons. Plus, 38 states is enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Not that they should: as other Findings observe, there is already more than enough consensus of fact finders to require outlawing of abortion in every state; and the consensus of fact finders is actually a stronger legal reason than a constitutional amendment, since no other Amendment was ratified to establish a fact.)
+<u>Illinois Right to Life</u>:
+<blockquote>Changes in the law have further eroded the underpinnings ''Roe''. Those changes [legally] recognize the human fetus as a human being.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>a. Enactment of fetal homicide laws in almost 80% of states demonstrates that, outside of the abortion context, a human fetus is legally recognized as a human being.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>In its 1973 ''Roe'' decision, the Court stated, “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” ''Roe'', 410 U.S. at 162. This has changed markedly since that time. Legislators in 38 of 50 states have enacted laws that criminalize the intentional killing of a human fetus. These “fetal homicide” laws, which only apply to non-abortive killings, recognize that preborn human fetuses are human beings entitled to protection under the law. In this context, a majority of states today recognize a human fetus as a human person from the moment of fertilization.</blockquote>
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ''fact'' that babies are people is established by this consensus of states – of all who have taken a position. (Not even the “bluest” state asserts that they are not people, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.)  This affirmation is not diminished by the failure of some states to protect babies from abortion. The response to facts by humans is an unreliable way to document facts. But regarding this fact, the verdict is unanimous.  </ref>
 individual judges,
 <ref>'''More about “Judges/Fact Finders”'''

Difference between revisions of "Reversing Landmark Abomination Cases"

Revision as of 04:10, 3 October 2023

Introduction

Contents

Bible Nugget: free wisdom, guaranteed success

Final Warning: read this at your own risk

Part 1: Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders

Statement of Fact #1. Court-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human

Bible Nugget #2: The Cost of Success

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

Finding #3. The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS

Statement of Fact #4: Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life

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

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

Statement of Fact #7: Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion

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

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

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

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

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools

Difference between revisions of "Reversing Landmark Abomination Cases"

Revision as of 04:10, 3 October 2023

Introduction

Contents

Bible Nugget: free wisdom, guaranteed success

Final Warning: read this at your own risk

Part 1: Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders

Statement of Fact #1. Court­-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human

Bible Nugget #2: The Cost of Success

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

Finding #3. The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS

Statement of Fact #4: Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life

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

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

Statement of Fact #7: Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion

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

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

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

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

Navigation menu

Find

Statement of Fact #1. Court-recognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human