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

Statement of Facts #3 from:

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Saving Babies from judges & voters
Saving Souls from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion

by proving in courts of law and in the Court of Public Opinion that:

 The right to live of a baby and of a judge are equal
 The Bible & reality-challenged religions are NOT equal

A strategy of Life that relies on the Author of Life
for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen

by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Try to imagine how a judge, reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts, would be able to dodge this evidence - in fact, see if you can find ANYONE who can refute these facts - as opposed to not caring about facts - that is, not caring about reality:

Statement of Facts #3 of 12: The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS

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

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: [1]
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] 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.

[2] 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”.

[3] 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....”

[4] 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)

[5] 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.)

[6] 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.

[7] 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.”

[8] 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.”

[9] 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)

[10] 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.

[11] 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

[12] 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: [1]
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]

[12]

Statement 3 + Footnotes

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Statement of Facts #3 of 12: The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools