Statement 5 + Footnotes - Revision history

DaveLeach at 20:38, 17 October 2023

2023-10-17T20:38:45Z

DaveLeach at 20:32, 17 October 2023

2023-10-17T20:32:58Z

DaveLeach: /* Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases */

2023-10-17T20:28:31Z

‎Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

DaveLeach at 19:49, 17 October 2023

2023-10-17T19:49:56Z

DaveLeach at 01:36, 16 October 2023

2023-10-16T01:36:21Z

DaveLeach at 01:23, 16 October 2023

2023-10-16T01:23:45Z

DaveLeach at 01:22, 16 October 2023

2023-10-16T01:22:05Z

DaveLeach at 19:32, 15 October 2023

2023-10-15T19:32:36Z

DaveLeach at 19:31, 15 October 2023

2023-10-15T19:31:44Z

DaveLeach at 19:29, 15 October 2023

2023-10-15T19:29:48Z

Show changes

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Examples from America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Jews, Republicans, undocumented immigrants.</ref>
-Official world-wide definitions of “crimes against humanity” apply “to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.”
+<span style="color:blue">Official world-wide definitions of “crimes against humanity” apply “to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.”
 <ref>More about “...definitions of ‘crimes against humanity’ apply ‘to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.’ ”
 <br>
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 <blockquote>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;</blockquote>
 <blockquote>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;</blockquote>
-<blockquote>e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.</blockquote>
 <blockquote>- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide / Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 / Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XII / www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 1948 definition above is cited in the following 1968 United Nations General Assembly resolution (which took effect two years later) which nullifies any “statute of limitations” on “crimes against humanity”:

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

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 1948 definition above is cited in the following 1968 United Nations General Assembly resolution (which took effect two years later) which nullifies any “statute of limitations” on “crimes against humanity”:
-<blockquote>Article I: No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:...(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations,...the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.
+<blockquote>Article I: No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:...(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations,...the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The following Article II applies the call for prosecution at any time, not limited by a Statute of Limitations, to elected representatives. The word “elected” is not there, but the context certainly includes them, especially since one cannot “represent” another, as the word is normally defined, without their voluntary authorization.
+<blockquote>Article II: If any of the crimes mentioned in article I is committed, the provisions of this Convention shall apply to representatives of the State authority and private individuals who, as principals or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes, or who conspire to commit them, irrespective of the degree of completion, and to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission. (Article II, Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War, ADOPTED 26 November 1968 BY General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII))</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If [genocide] is committed,
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the provisions of this Convention shall apply
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to representatives of the State authority
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;who tolerate [its] commission.
+<br>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thybault writes, “...the Court has not yet fully reversed Roe, Doe, and Casey.” She submitted this observation to the Court which finally reversed all three, technically, although the slaughter continues in most states so her observation is still timely.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“No American citizen should have to live under, nor as history tragically demonstrates, should they stand by silently, while their government sanctions and even promotes crimes against humanity.”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another low point in the Supreme Court’s grasp of 14th Amendment equal rights, she mentions, was Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which, like Roe and Dred Scott, “denied legal protection to a class of human beings” and “ignored the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment”. “Plessy accepted the gloss that ‘separate but equal’ was ‘equal’.”
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;She repeats, “When the government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings, it is the classic definition of a crime against humanity.”
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;She repeats, “When the government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings, it is the classic definition of a crime against humanity.”</ref>
 ----
 '''FOOTNOTES'''

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To select this one invidious [a favorite court word meaning unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings – unborn babies – to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Examples from America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Jews, Republicans, undocumented immigrants.</ref>
 ----

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |}
-'''REVERSING LANDMARK ABOMINATION CASES'''
+Statement of Facts #5 from:
 <span style="color:red">'''Saving Babies''' from judges & voters

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 <span style="color:blue">But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of a supposedly unwanted group of humans completely unregulated. That interpretation of Dobbs’ holding is premised on a “mistake of fact”, which is an official exception to Stare Decisis.
-<ref>1 More about “a ‘mistake of fact’...is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.”
+<ref>More about “a ‘mistake of fact’...is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, described Roe v. Wade as “precedent upon precedent”, yet when asked by a Democrat about a precedent that ''Democrats'' don’t like, (''Citizens United''), he explained that a “mistake of facts” is one of ''Stare Decisis’'' official grounds for overturning precedents. (''Stare Decisis'' means “Let the decision stand”. Precedents should be followed except when their errors are clear.) Here is an excerpt:
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Whitehouse: “The hypothetical problem that I have has to do with an appellate court which makes a finding of fact. Asserts a proposition of fact to be true. And upon that proposition hangs the decision that it reaches. The question is, what happens when that proposition of fact...turns out not to be true?” ...
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 <span style="color:blue">The “Mistake of Fact” that is the premise of letting voters decide whether to continue judge-approved genocide according to the “value” they place on little people is that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant. That premise was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.
-<ref>2 More about “The [mistaken] premise... that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant...was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs”
+<ref>More about “The [mistaken] premise... that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant...was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;These quotes are repeated from earlier footnotes to Finding #3: notes #1, 8, 10.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Dobbs v. Jackson''' explicitly ignored the central inquiry:
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 <span style="color:blue">The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that interpretation of Dobbs’ holding, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.
-<ref>5 More about '''“The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit...requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.”'''
+<ref>More about '''“The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit...requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.”'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To select this one invidious [a favorite court word meaning unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings – unborn babies – to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Examples from America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Jews, Republicans, undocumented immigrants.</ref>

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
-'''Statement of Facts #5: Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders.'''
+<span style="color:blue">'''Statement of Facts #5: Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders.'''
-But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of a supposedly unwanted group of humans completely unregulated. That interpretation of Dobbs’ holding is premised on a “mistake of fact”, which is an official exception to Stare Decisis.
+<span style="color:blue">But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of a supposedly unwanted group of humans completely unregulated. That interpretation of Dobbs’ holding is premised on a “mistake of fact”, which is an official exception to Stare Decisis.
 <ref>1 More about “a ‘mistake of fact’...is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.”
-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, described Roe v. Wade as “precedent upon precedent”, yet when asked by a Democrat about a precedent that ''Democrats'' don’t like, (''Citizens United''), he explained that a “mistake of facts” is one of ''Stare Decisis’'' official grounds for overturning precedents. (''Stare Decisis'' means “Let the decision stand”. Precedents should be followed except when their errors are clear.) Here is an excerpt:
+<span style="color:blue">The “Mistake of Fact” that is the premise of letting voters decide whether to continue judge-approved genocide according to the “value” they place on little people is that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant. That premise was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.
 <ref>2 More about “The [mistaken] premise... that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant...was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;These quotes are repeated from earlier footnotes to Finding #3: notes #1, 8, 10.
@@ Line 55: / Line 51: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But ''Roe'' didn’t say the facts didn’t matter, but the opposite: the fact that babies of people are people, once “established”, is “of course” dispositive. </ref>
-That is an “erroneous factual premise”. The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable
+<span style="color:blue">That is an “erroneous factual premise”. The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable
 <ref>More about “The fact that little unborn humans are humans is neither unknowable....”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Statement of Facts #1: “Court-recognized,  court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize.”</ref>
-nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive.
+<span style="color:blue">nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive.
 <ref>More about “The fact that little unborn humans are humans...is verifiable and dispositive.”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Scrupulously neutral” was Justice Kavanaugh’s idea, in his ''Dobbs'' concurrence, about how to keep an abortion ruling virtuous. But what virtuous person leaves the lives of millions to be decided by their value to voters?
@@ Line 69: / Line 64: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And rob ''Dobbs'' of any conceivable justification for its “scrupulous neutrality”.</ref>
-The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that interpretation of Dobbs’ holding, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.
+<span style="color:blue">The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that interpretation of Dobbs’ holding, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.
 <ref>5 More about '''“The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit...requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.”'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To select this one invidious [a favorite court word meaning unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings – unborn babies – to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |[https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=G3A8DgIJOtxZ3zn7_1cVGnF-lRSUzXCVpSf30Q7Gd_zLYTBERe7VSt2YrZSlihtU6K4lYW&country.x=US&locale.x=US Donate]
 |}
 <span style="color:red">'''Saving Babies''' from judges & voters

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The hope expressed in ''Roe'' and ignored in ''Dobbs'' “that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person...is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus.” So stated the <u>Illinois Right to Life</u> amicus submitted in Dobbs v. Jackson. [See www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686_19-1392%20BRIEF%20FOR%20AMICUS%20CURIAE%20ILLINOIS%20RIGHT%20TO%20LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf] “Roe also rests on a determination that the humanity and personhood of a human fetus was not generally recognized in law. That legal context has changed as well.”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Dobbs'' not only agreed, but proved “that legal context” (that personhood was not generally recognized in law) had ''never even existed. Dobbs'' corrected Roe’s history, ''showing'' that protection of unborn babies was “well rooted in America’s legal history” (although ''concluding'' only that abortion was not).
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRTL notes the growing consensus since Roe of legislatures, which Roe treated as court-recognized fact finders: “Among other changes in the law, fetuses are now protected as human beings under laws prohibiting fetal homicide. Other laws, such as ‘heartbeat’ laws and laws protecting against fetal pain, which are increasingly being enacted by the states, demonstrate their interest in protecting the youngest and most vulnerable humans. Finally, changes in the laws and the availability of social services that support and protect pregnant women have ameliorated the plight of pregnancy and lessened the burden of child-rearing. All of these changes rob Roe of its factual and legal underpinnings.”
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRTL notes the growing consensus since ''Roe'' of legislatures, which ''Roe'' treated as court-recognized fact finders: “Among other changes in the law, fetuses are now protected as human beings under laws prohibiting fetal homicide. Other laws, such as ‘heartbeat’ laws and laws protecting against fetal pain, which are increasingly being enacted by the states, demonstrate their interest in protecting the youngest and most vulnerable humans. Finally, changes in the laws and the availability of social services that support and protect pregnant women have ameliorated the plight of pregnancy and lessened the burden of child-rearing. All of these changes rob Roe of its factual and legal underpinnings.”
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And rob Dobbs of any conceivable justification for its “scrupulous neutrality”.</ref>
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And rob ''Dobbs'' of any conceivable justification for its “scrupulous neutrality”.</ref>
 The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that interpretation of Dobbs’ holding, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.