View source for The “Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Unanimous Court-Recognized Evidence that Abortion is Murder” Act

{| class="wikitable"
|[[Forum]] (Articles)
|[[Offer]]
|[[Partners]]
|[[Rules]]
|[[Tips]]
|[[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]
|[[Begin!]]
|[https://family-music-center.square.site Donate]
|}

<span style="color:#0000FF">This forum was created by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) 04:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) to help prolifers discuss the most effective evidence and legal arguments to include in legislation designed to force courts to address the overwhelming consensus of court-recognized fact finders that babies are people, which requires all states to outlaw abortion, according to the 14th Amendment, as ''Roe'' pointed, which ''Dobbs'' did not challenge. The original post of this article was condensed from "How States Can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts", by Dave Leach. Available as a [https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+states+can+outlaw+abortion+in+a+way+that+survives+courts paperback, Kindle,]</span> or as a [http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf free PDF]. 

----

<span style="color:#0DA">Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote]. Improve it. Critique it. Sign your name with 4 tildes (<nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki>).</span>

----


=The "Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Unanimous Court-Recognized Evidence that Abortion is Murder" Act=

It is the '''fact''' that unborn babies are living human children that makes killing them murder. It’s not what any ''law'' says about it, or even what the Constitution says about it. That’s what leaves Dobbs v. Jackson on the edge of reality, by treating this fact as something for voters to figure out, not on the basis of whether babies are in fact people but on the basis of some “value” they place on little people. 

That '''fact''' is what makes the consensus of court-recognized fact finders a stronger legal reason to end legal abortion than a Life Amendment, and a powerful social reason in the Court of Public Opinion. 	Which makes it insane for prolifers to not even mention this legally dispositive consensus in each and every prolife court case, and every “findings of facts” of prolife legislation!

<center><h2>'''Ending legal abortion everywhere in close to a year'''
<br>(the goal of the following bill language)
<br>'''requires a law whose Findings of Facts: '''
</h2></center>

* '''contain evidence which no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal anywhere:''' that unborn babies are real people – established by the (unanimous) consensus of court-recognized factfinders: juries, expert witnesses, 38 states, judges, and Congress;

* '''present its evidence in a way that is clear  and persuasive to voters,'''  to help them resist judicial and media gaslighting; (See below for “Why court-recognized fact finders persuade Voters”)

* '''address misunderstandings about abortion jurisprudence''' that divide prolifers, intimidate lawyers, and blind judges;

'''AND WHOSE PENALTIES'''

* '''restrict some aspect of abortion substantially enough''' that THEY can't be defended as a mere regulation with some other legitimate government purpose than saving lives. The restriction must be profound enough that its only possible defense is that it saves human lives. That will force courts to address the evidence that babies are fully human;

* '''provide no distractions that let judges rule on some technicality and ignore the evidence that the law would save lives.''' A perfect law that addresses everything from exceptions to contraception multiplies a judge’s opportunity to say “we don’t need to reach the issue of when life begins because the law fails on a lesser issue.” A simple yet substantial restriction, with “findings” that address the legal obstacles, will survive courts, which will get courts out of the way of saving life, which will free lawmakers to work out the challenging details with time to get a comprehensive solution right and with hope that they won’t waste their time; 

* '''list specific penalties for specific situations,''' rather than broadly stated goals such as “babies are to be protected as much as adults”, leaving prosecutors and judges to guess what to punish, or how, in situations where evidence and culpability are different; 

* '''contain a “life of the mother” exception''' whose applicability is clear enough that mothers are not denied life-saving care until doctors are assured by lawyers that said care will not put the doctors in jail; and

'''THE LAW SHOULD ALSO order courts to “expedite” any review,''' “because lives are lost with each day that courts delay”.  

(A grant of expedited review will constitute tacit agreement that babies are people. To deny expedited review a judge would have to claim that lives are NOT lost with each day that courts delay; but there is simply no evidence to support such a claim! No American legal fact-finding authority in 50 years has dared such a claim! SCOTUS, from Roe to Dobbs, claims that even Supreme Court judges are incompetent to know - will a lower court judge claim superior knowledge?! Checkmate!)

More ideas: [[Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating]]



__TOC__

----
<span style="color:#0f0">John 10:10  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.


Abortion steals futures and family, kills the most innocent, and destroys economies and nations. Abortion isn’t the only Thief. The voices which self-censor to indulge inaction deny themselves Life More Abundantly.  </span>

----

=Findings of Facts Designed to Court-Proof Prolife Laws= 

<span style="color:#0000FF">'''Legislative Findings of Facts''' are the part of some laws which have no penalties, but instead contain principles, facts, or arguments to clarify the intent of the Penalties Section to help judges correctly apply it. This section of some bills may be called “Findings of Facts”, “Legislative Findings”, “Preamble”, etc. Sometimes, as here, it contains facts or legal arguments that refute objections to the law expected in courts, so judges won't overturn it.)  </span>

'''WORD COUNTS:''' Using only the first boldfaced paragraph of each of these 12 Findings, plus the headings after each "Finding #__", will total 347 words. The complete Findings, without footnotes, total 2944 words. For the advantages of including enough information for the Findings to defend themselves, see [[Too Lengthy?]] below. 

====Part 1: The Authority of Court-Recognized Fact Finders====

Try to imagine how a judge, reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts, would be able to dodge this evidence: 

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

No fact can be more legally established than the fact that “life begins”  at fertilization, being the consensus of every American legal authority who has taken a position, in every category of court-recognized finders of facts: juries,
<ref>More about “Juries/court-recognized Finders of Facts”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''When juries ruled that babies are real people.''' When prolifers blocked abortionists’ doors before 1993, the only seriously disputed fact issue at trial was whether human lives were saved. The earliest juries ruled that they were, and acquitted, so judges stopped letting juries hear that defense. Abortionists were so scared of juries thinking babies are people, that when a judge decided to let the jury hear that defense, the abortionist would drop the prosecution. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A law school journal reports: “After the court ruled that it would allow the [Necessity] Defense to go to the jury, the Women for Women Clinic dropped the prosecution. If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution, which is merely proving the elements of criminal trespass. [Except for the one element that matters, and the only contested trial issue: whether lives were saved.] Rather than risk such a precedent, many clinics prefer to dismiss. In fact, defense counsel have admitted that their intent is to bring the abortion issue back before the United States Supreme Court to consider the very question of when life begins, an issue on which the Court refused to rule in Roe...” (The Cincinnati Law Review footnote analyzes the case of ''Ohio v. Rinear'', No. 78999CRB-3706 (Mun. Ct. Hamilton County, Ohio, dismissed May 2, 1978)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Juries don’t usually give reasons for their verdicts.''' I (Dave Leach, author) was a defendant in such a trial, where the judge allowed the jury to hear the defense, the abortionist let the case proceed,  and the jury acquitted. ''State v. Brouillette, et al, Johnson County, Iowa,'' 1989. 155 of us were arrested January 26, 1989 for blocking the doors of the Emma Goldman clinic in Iowa City, Iowa. Rather than pack all 155 in the court room, 16 of us were tried in the first batch. It was assumed that what happened to them would drive what happened later to the rest; especially since J. Patrick White, the prosecuting county attorney, had told newspapers that if the first 16 were acquitted there is no way he would prosecute the others. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''How God provided an official record of the jury’s reasons.''' But after the jury acquitted the first 16, White refused to dismiss, and that is the only reason we have an official court record documenting that the Defense of Justification was the only issue before the jury. The jury didn’t say so, but the judge did, in his ruling dismissing the remaining charges. That ruling is so helpful, and the difficulty of getting an official record of a jury’s reasons so great, that God must be credited and thanked for presumably hardening the heart of the prosecutor so the judge had to rule. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The judge wrote that both sides stipulated to (officially agreed about) the facts. “Each Defendant stipulated to his or her identity; to entering and remaining upon public property; and to failing to leave said public property after being notified and requested to vacate by persons whose duty it was to supervise the use and maintenance of this property. By this stipulation, the sole element of the offense of Criminal Trespass which remained to be proven was '''whether each defendant acted without justification.''' [Violating a minor offense, like trespassing, is “justified” when it is “necessary” to save lives.] The verdict of the jury indicates the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, '''the one essential element of the charge which remained in issue.''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In a trial of the remaining 138 Defendants, [one of the 155 arrested was juvenile and was not charged], a jury would be presented with this identical issue. So the remaining charges should be dropped by the theory of Issue Preclusion - if Joe is found innocent after doing something, Jack should be after doing the same thing.)”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another such case may be ''Northern Virginia Women's Medical Center v. Balch'', 617 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (4th Cir. 1980) which refers to two unreported cases where “necessity” led to acquittals. But it is not clear whether it was a jury or “bench” trial.</ref>
thousands of expert witnesses who were not contested,
<ref>'''More about “Expert Witnesses/court-recognized Fact Finders’”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Doctors & geneticists routinely testified in “Operation Rescue”-type door-blocking trials.''' See footnote #4: “If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence is rarely contradicted by the prosecution,” The evidence is presented by expert witnesses – doctors, geneticists, etc. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''When a world famous geneticist flew from France to Wichita.''' A case widely reported among prolifers was when Elizabeth Tilson, a defendant who blocked an abortion door so mothers couldn’t go inside to kill their babies, flew in a world famous geneticist from France to Judge Paul Clark’s Wichita court. There was no jury, but a “bench” trial over which Clark presided. His lengthy ruling, acquitting Tilson, is reported in Appendix H of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. A paperback is available at Amazon; a free PDF is posted at www.Saltshaker.us.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''How Courts Dodged Overwhelming Evidence of Life.'''  The defense raised in virtually all those trials of all those 60,000+ arrested life savers was based on American law, not religion. I know of no case where anyone asked for a religious exemption from letting the slaughter continue, or who gave Bible verses as the reason they should be acquitted. 
And yet courts routinely dismissed legitimate legal defenses as being exclusively religious. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Surely the most notorious example was Elizabeth Tilson’s defense on July 20, 1992. She even flew in the world’s top geneticist from France, Dr. LeJeune, to testify about “when life begins”. District Judge Paul Clark, summarizing the defense and ruling in her favor, did not indicate religion was any part of the defense. (See excerpts in Appendix H, p. 145.) Yet the Kansas Court dismissed all that world-class scientific evidence as a “moral or ethical belief” of some dowdy no-account religious kook housewife who expects law to bow to her superstitions. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote>
If recognized as [a] defense in [a] criminal case, justification by necessity defense only applies when [the] harm or evil which [the] defendant seeks to prevent by his or her own criminal conduct is legal[ly recognized] harm or evil '''as opposed to moral or ethical belief of individual defendant'''....defendants did not engage in illegal conduct because they were faced with a choice of evils. Rather, they intentionally trespassed on complainant's property '''in order to interfere with the rights of others'''....</blockquote>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But what about the world-class testimony that human beings were being slaughtered? Completely irrelevant, the court said. We have to follow “law”, not some frowsy housewife’s “moral or ethical belief”:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote>In a criminal prosecution for trespass upon the property of an abortion clinic, the defense of justification by necessity is inapplicable and '''evidence of when life begins is irrelevant. The admission of evidence of when life begins in such an action was error''' by the trial court....Judge Paul Clark held that...the defendant was absolved of any criminal liability for her actions, based upon the necessity defense [which] justified her trespassing upon the Clinic property '''for the purpose of saving a human life.''' At trial, over the objections of the City, the defendant was allowed to introduce expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The City did not attempt to controvert such evidence but instead took the position that the evidence was '''inadmissible because it was irrelevant.'''</blockquote>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Her REAL motive, said the Court, was not “saving a human life” as documented by the world’s leading expert on genetics at all, but was “to interfere with the rights of others” according to some individual’s “moral or ethical belief”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is not an isolated “straw man” misconstruction of a serious legal defense. Appellate courts did it routinely. Appendix F of my book, linked in Note 3, gives examples. If we could trust courts to never do that again, this book could be a lot shorter. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Doctors testifying as official Expert Witnesses in “rescue” trials was so routine that even I had one in my own trial.''' I found a doctor to testify in my own trial after I was arrested for sitting in front of a Planned Barrenhood door to prevent mothers from coming in to murder their babies. It was after a workshop put on by “rescuers” to educate people who had never been inside a courtroom how to conduct ourselves in court, since few of us could afford a lawyer and lawyers successful in such cases could not be found. Doctors willing to testify for free were plentiful. Their testimony was routine in “rescue” trials, even after judges stopped allowing juries to hear them. There were not just a few trials. In about 1992 Operation Rescue reported that there had been over 60,000 arrests of door-blockers.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After judges stopped letting juries listen to the witnesses, doctors still testified, but after sending the jury out. It is called a “proffer” of evidence; the judge rules that it is irrelevant, but he will let the evidence go into the record so that it will be there for any appeal. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Updated science''' is summarized by the <u>Illinois Right to Life</u> in their amicus brief filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson''. “Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in his testimony in connection with the 1981 hearing on Senate Bill 158, the Human Life Bill, see infra at 15-16, concluded, '''‘I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being'''. This is human life at every stage.’ Cited in House Resolution No. 214, https://perma. cc/6XRG-L2C8. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''The Consensus of Biologists.''' “b. A n over whelming majority of biologists recognize that a human’s life begins at fertilization. A recent international study involving 5,577 biologists from 86 countries who work at 1,061 top-ranked academic institutions confirmed the scientific consensus on when life begins. The study asked biologists to confirm or reject five statements that represent the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization. The majority of the biologists in the study identified as liberal (89%), pro#choice (85%), and non-religious (63%). 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed at least one of the statements and only 240 participants declined to affirm any statements (4%). 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The study participants were also asked to answer an essay question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” Most biologists (68%) indicated fertilization. Thus, while in Roe, the Court found that experts could not arrive at any consensus at that point in the development of man’s knowledge, that is no longer the case.” [American participants included biologists from Harvard University, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Yale University. See When Does Life Begin?, Illinois Right to Life, https://perma.cc/U99P-4Y6C. Steven A. Jacobs, Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate, Knowledge@Uchicago, 2019, https://perma.cc/GZT2-8JDN
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''An Official Senate Report.''' “c. Legislative hearings on when life begins marshalled scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization. During hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, numerous scientific experts testified regarding when life begins. The Official Senate Report concluded that: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” [Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7] In the hearings, Dr. Jerome Lejeune testified that “[l]ife has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning – the moment of its conception” because “[t]o accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence.” S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 transcript, 18. [ S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 Transcript, https://perma. cc/6DCT-UT4P.]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''No alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in scientific literature.''' “Experts from leading institutions have testified that there are no alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in the scientific literature. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor of Medical Genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic, testified: “I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against.” Id. at 52. This lack of any published, let alone generally accepted, alternative scientific theories was also attested to by Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate in the Department of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Id. at 41-42. ...
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''A few disagree but without even trying to invoke science, medicine, or facts.'''  “While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.”</ref>
38 state legislatures,
<ref>'''More about “State Legislatures/court-recognized Fact Finders”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“At least 38 states”, (enough to enact a Constitutional Amendment), “have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.” Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728 (Ala. 2012) The ruling’s basis: “State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622, 689 n. 46, 998 A.2d 1, 50 n.46 (2010) (‘[As of March 2010], at least [thirty-eight] states have fetal homicide laws.’ (quoting the National Conference of State Legislatures, Fetal Homicide Laws (March 2010) (alterations in Courchesne)”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Amicus filed in Dobbs by Illinois Right to Life: [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686_19-1392%20BRIEF%20FOR%20AMICUS%20CURIAE%20ILLINOIS%20RIGHT%20TO%20<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf]
“Fetuses are recognized as human persons in numerous contexts: (1) laws that restrict abortion at some point in fetal development, (2) fetal homicide laws, (3) prohibitions against capital punishment imposed upon pregnant women, (4) recovery for fetal deaths under wrongful death statutes, (5) the rights of preborn children under property law, (6) legal guardianship of prenatal humans, [See Paul Benjamin Linton, The Legal Status of the Unborn Child Under State Law, 6 U. St. Thomas J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 2011, https://perma.cc/XB8E-G375. ] (7) the rights of preborn children to a deceased parent’s Social Security and Disability benefits[SSR 68-22: SECTION 216(h)(3)(C). – Relationship – Status of Illegitimate Posthumous Child, Social Security Administration, https://perma.cc/W3TR-89L9. ], and (8) the rights of inheritance of posthumously born children.[. Alea Roberts, Where’s My Share?: Inheritance Rights of Posthumous Children, American Bar Association, Jun. 13, 2019, https://perma.cc/36VN-HZZ8 ] Despite the plethora of contexts in which fetuses are recognized as persons under the law, this Court has yet to recognize the personhood of preborn humans. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“b. '''States are increasingly proposing and enacting laws protective of unborn human beings even when abortion is curtailed as a result.''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Today, 43 states have enacted laws protecting prenatal humans although abortion is thereby restricted. All but one restrict abortion access at the earliest point permissible by Roe (viability), and states have recently more emphatically asserted a state interest in the lives of previable human beings by seeking to protect them: (1) after the sixth week since that is known to be the point at which a fetus’ heart first beats (AL HB314; IA SF359) and (2) after the twentieth week since that has been found to be the point at which a fetus can first feel pain (OH SB 127).” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;States don’t unanimously protect the unborn, but no state finds that unborn babies are ''not'' human persons. Plus, 38 states is enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. (Not that they should: as other Findings observe, there is already more than enough consensus of fact finders to require outlawing of abortion in every state; and the consensus of fact finders is actually a stronger legal reason than a constitutional amendment, since no other Amendment was ratified to establish a fact.    </ref>
individual judges,
<ref>'''More about “Judges/Fact Finders”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One example is Judge Paul Clark: see footnote 3. Another is Justice Dimond in Alaska:  Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, 631 P.2d 1073, 1084:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Concurring:) "I empathize with the defendants' sorrow over the loss of human lives caused by abortions. I believe the United States Supreme Court burdened this court with a tragic decision when it held in Roe...that the word “person, as used in the fourteenth amendment, does not include the unborn...”, and that states cannot “override the rights of the pregnant woman” by “adopting one theory of life.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"I do not agree with the Court's conclusion that a state's interest in potential life does not become “compelling” until the fetus has attained viability. It stated its explanation for this conclusion as follows:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” ~ "(410 U.S. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 731-32, 35 L.Ed.2d at 183) As Professor Tribe indicates, “One reads the court's explanation [of the magic line called “viability”] several times before becoming convinced that nothing has inadvertently been omitted.” (Tribe, Forward to The Supreme Court 1972 Term, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1. 4 (1973](footnote omitted]). I agree with Professor Tribe when he states, “Clearly, this (analysis] mistakes a definition for a syllogism”, and offers no reason at all for what the Court has held. (Id., quoting Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 924 (1973](footnotes omitted]).
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In effect, the Supreme Court held that because there is no consensus as to when human life begins it can act as if it were proven that human life does not begin until birth so as to preserve to women the right to make their own decision whether an abortion takes a human life or not. It would make more sense to me if, in the face of uncertainty, any error made were side in favor of the fetus, which many believe to be human life.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The development of a zygote into a human child is a continual, progressive development. No one suggests that the born child is not a human being. It seems undeniable, however, that human life begins before birth. As Professor Curran states:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“[T]he fetus one day before birth and the child one day after birth are not that significantly or qualitatively different – in any respect; Even outside the womb the newborn child is not independent but remains greatly dependent on the mother and others. Birth in fact does not really tell much about the individual as such but only where the individual is--either outside the womb or still Inside the womb.' (C. Curran, Transition and Tradition in Moral Theology, p. 209 (1919]). Similarly, viability does not mark the beginning of the truly human being.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"[V]iability again indicates more about where the fetus can live than what it is. The fetus immediately before viability is not that qualitatively different from the viable fetus. In addition viability is a very inexact criterion because it is intimately connected with medical and scientific advances. In the future it might very well be possible for the fetus to live in an artificial womb or even with an artificial placenta from a very early stage in fetal development.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"I join with those persons who believe that truly human life begins sometime between the second and third week after conception...."
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A dissent by Justice Mahoney said 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Until the Court decides when a fetus is a person, I see no reason to deny the defense of necessity to those who believe that the fetus is viable and is a person...At least it would get the issue squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court....” Detwiler v. Akron, C.A. No. 14385 at 22 (9th App. Dist. 1990)    </ref>
and Congress.
<ref>'''More about “Congress/court-recognized Fact Finder'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18 U.S.C. 1841(d) “...the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finding #7  explains why this Personhood statement is as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment, and is NOT mitigated by section (c), as alleged by the National Right to Life Committee and by Republican Congressmen.</ref> 

No legal authority has ruled that any unborn baby of a human is not in fact a human person, or that “life begins” any later than fertilization.
<ref>'''More about “No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected ‘life begins’ any later than conception.”''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not even New York’s January 22, 2019 law. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This needs to be clarified because conservative news reported as if New York became an exception. Not that the law was harmless. It legalized abortions through birth when the abortionist alleged the baby would die soon anyway. It allowed non-doctors to kill babies. It repealed a law requiring a second physician to be present in case an infant was born alive and needdobbs v jacksoned care. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But it didn’t define “person” to only mean human beings who are born, leaving unborn humans defined as non-persons. The articles I found didn’t exactly say that, but they implied that by reporting the definition of “persons”, without reporting that the definition was not added by the new law but had been in the law for years, and without reporting the context of the definition which simply means that when the coroner investigates dead bodies found in his county, or in a jail, he will not investigate unborn babies. It also means a judge, when excluding the public from divorce or rape trials, will not exclude unborn babies. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The definition: “ ‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”
As I said, the conservative reports didn’t directly say the definition meant that unborn babies were defined as nonpersons, so most readers might not have thought about it. But because I had been claiming that no American legal authority had ever ruled that babies become real people at any later time than fertilization, I wanted to look into it to see if New York had created an exception.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You can verify that the definition was already in the law by reading the bill, and noting that the phrase is not underlined, which is how additions to laws are indicated. See [https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S00240&term=2019 &Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y]
You can also verify it by reading the law as of 2016, which includes that definition. [https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2016/pen/part-3/title-h/article-125/125.05/]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You can read the Breitbart report at  [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/ 2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/] 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You can read the Townhall report at  [https://townhall.com/tipsheet/ laurettabrown/2 019/01/23/new-york-passes-extreme-abortion-legislation-on-the-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade-n2539902]hh
The law had previously read “Homicide  means  conduct  which  causes  the  death of a person [or an unborn child....]” The 2019 law deleted the part in brackets. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The definition previously had two more paragraphs which the 2019 law deleted. They defined the terms “abortional act” and “justifiable abortional act” which had been used in the now deleted law against late term abortion. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This point is worth clearing up because it is a very strong, important argument for the legal recognizability of all unborn babies as humans/persons, and of all abortions as murder, that no American legal authority has ruled that constitutionally protected “life begins” any later than conception. Not one. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Not even ''foreign'' legal authorities support any right to abortion.''' <u>141 International Legal Scholars</u> submitted an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson case declaring that “Whatever role international law plays in evaluating abortion regulations in the United States, it offers no basis for the existence of a human right to abortion.” (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185170/20210729071535904_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20141%20International%20Legal%20Scholars.pdf) “The minority of States that choose to allow elective abortion impose a standard gestational limit of twelve weeks, which is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“If the Court chooses to consult international law in this case, it will find there is no treaty that recognizes a so-called human right to abortion, nor has such a right been established through customary law. To the contrary, the practice across all regions demonstrates a consistent State prerogative to protect unborn life. Nor has any international court declared the existence of an international right to abortion, even in regions with the most permissive abortion regimes. Thirdparty actors seeking to invent a new right to abortion err when interpreting key international instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Rome Statute, and the International Conference on Population and Development. The clear language in those documents defies any attempt to repurpose them to create an international human right to abortion. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“On the other hand, provisions recognizing the unborn child as a rights-holder can be found in many international human rights instruments, including the American Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Most States choose to exercise the prerogative to protect unborn life by regulating abortion much more strictly than in the United States. Even in the minority of States that permit elective abortions, most specify a gestational limit of twelve weeks. That limit is more restrictive than Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which allows elective abortion until fifteen weeks’ gestation, and then permits abortion only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Their conclusions were echoed by another international group,  <u>Center for Family and Human Rights </u>(www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185123/20210728132729071_CFam Amicus Brief Filed.pdf)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The 2018 Mississippi Gestational Age Act banning most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, when the child in utero is known to suffer pain from common abortion procedures, is fully consistent with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the United States, which presumptively protects the right to life of children in the womb (hereinafter, the “Covenant”), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. EXEC. DOC. E, 95-2 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976), as well as other human rights commitments and obligations of the United States. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“A careful reading of the text and history of the Covenant reveals that children in the womb were never excluded from the right to life, and that, more broadly, international law does not establish a human right to abortion in any circumstance, either through treaty obligation or by custom....
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Treaty law is the supreme Law of the Land and the Court has a constitutional responsibility to declare what the law is. The Court should make a finding of law that children in the womb are not excluded from the right to life under the Covenant, given the plain meaning of the text of the Covenant when it was ratified by the U.S., the interpretation of the Covenant by the Executive branch, and its implementation by other States who are party to the treaty, therefore, laws to protect children in the womb from being arbitrarily deprived of their right to life, regardless of viability, are consistent with the  international human rights obligations of the United States.”   </ref> 

No state can keep abortion legal now that this fact is established. This is so obvious that even Roe v. Wade said “of course”, and the lawyer for the abortionists agreed.
<ref>More about “Even Roe v. Wade said ‘of course’, and even the lawyer for the abortionists agreed, that  no state could keep abortion legal now that this fact is established.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If there are 39 witnesses to a murder, should a prosecutor bring forward only one? But legislatures have supported abortion bans with only their own testimony in their Findings. No 37 other states. No Congress. No thousands of uncontradicted expert witnesses. No dozens of juries. Only a trace of the overwhelming evidence for the claim that constitutionally protected “life begins” at fertilization. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For as long as prolifers do not justify their restrictions of abortion with the full range of evidence available from all states, it seems unlikely, indeed not fully rational, that the Supreme Court will end the right of women to take care of their own health for the sake of embryonic pigs and rabbits – which is how human embryos were depicted in the illustration cited by Roe, published in Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. (See Appendix I in the book cited in Footnote #3.) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by Illinois Right to Life [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686 _19-1392 BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE ILLINOIS RIGHT TO LIFE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS.pdf]:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In Roe, the Court based its “viability” standard on: (a) lack of a scientific consensus on when human life begins...It recognized that if a human fetus is a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the case for unrestricted abortion would be untenable “for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Id. at 157.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"....Roe’s recognition of a right to abort a previable pregnancy rests on the belief that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person. That belief is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus. Roe also rests on a determination that the humanity and personhood of a human fetus was not generally recognized in law. That legal context has changed as well. Among other changes in the law, fetuses are now protected as human beings under laws prohibiting fetal homicide. Other laws, such as “heartbeat” laws and laws protecting against fetal pain, which are increasingly being enacted by the states, demonstrate their interest in protecting the youngest and most vulnerable humans. Finally, changes in the laws and the availability of social services that support and protect pregnant women have ameliorated the plight of pregnancy and lessened the burden of child-rearing. All of these changes rob Roe of its factual and legal underpinnings...
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in his testimony in connection with the 1981 hearing on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill, see infra at 15-16, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.” Cited in House Resolution No. 214, https://perma. cc/6XRG-L2C8. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'''An over whelming majority of biologists recognize that a human’s life begins at fertilization.''' A recent international study involving 5,577 biologists from 86 countries who work at 1,061 top-ranked academic institutions22 confirmed the scientific consensus on when life begins.23 The study asked biologists to confirm or reject five statements that represent the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization. The majority of the biologists in the study identified as liberal (89%), prochoice (85%), and non-religious (63%). 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed at least one of the statements and only 240 participants declined to affirm any statements (4%). The study participants were also asked to answer an essay question: “From a biological perspective, how would you answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” Most biologists (68%) indicated fertilization. Thus, while in Roe, the Court found that experts could not arrive at any consensus at that point in the development of man’s knowledge, that is no longer the case. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"c. Legislative hearings on when life begins marshalled scientific evidence that life begins at fertilization. During hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, numerous scientific experts testified regarding when life begins. The Official Senate Report concluded that: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”24 In the hearings, Dr. Jerome Lejeune testified that “[l]ife has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning – the moment of its conception” because “[t]o accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence.” S-158 Hearings, April 23, 1981 transcript, 18.25 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Experts from leading institutions have testified that there are no alternative theories on when a human’s life begins in the scientific literature. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor of Medical Genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic, testified: “I have never ever seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life of this nature, that anyone has ever argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception and that it was a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against.” Id. at 52. This lack of any published, let alone generally accepted, alternative scientific theories was also attested to by Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate in the Department of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Id. at 41-42. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"d. Even doctors who perform abortions and proponents of abortion rights admit fetuses are human beings. 
Many practitioners of abortion and supporters of abortion rights acknowledge human life begins at conception.26 For example, when abortion doctor Dr. Curtis Boyd was interviewed, he acknowledged with respect to abortion: “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.”27 Abortion rights supporter and ethicist Peter Singer has written that being “a member of a given species is something that 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''26. Derek Smith, Pro-Choice Concedes: Prominent Abortion Proponents Concede The Barbarity Of Abortion, Human Defense Initiative, Nov. 7, 2018, https://perma.cc/GXH8-MAUU. See also, A New Ethic for Medicine and Society, California Medicine, Sep. 1970. 
27. KVUE Austin Interview of Dr. Curtis Boyd, at 0:23, YouTube, Nov. 6, 2009, https://perma.cc/GYB2-3YFY.'' 
<br>can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;e. '''Views opposing the position that human life starts at fertilization are unscientific and ideological.''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While some oppose the consensus view that human life begins at fertilization, the few counter-arguments made are philosophical or ideological, rather than scientific or fact-driven. In point of fact, no viable alternative to the consensus view has been propounded.29 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;....Ultimately, opposing arguments to the scientific consensus that a human’s life begins at fertilization are fallacious or focus on aspects of biology that are not relevant to the biological classification of human beings.     </ref>

For other public issues, disagreement is over facts.
<ref>'''More about “For other public issues, division is over facts.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Climate Change activists treat it as an emergency which is significantly affected by human activity. Their opponents say climate change is in fact no emergency, and even if it were, human activity has negligible impact on it. Both sides rely on “science”. (Of course pollution h<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;arms our health and quality of life, especially in the locality of the CRT controversy is entirely over facts. A very different set of facts of American history competes sometimes violently with the <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Immigration policy is a tug of war between claims of groups like NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies that so much immigration drives up prices, drives down wages, destroys national security, etc. and peer-reviewed economics studies claiming economic benefit to citizens at most levels, from a slight increase in immigration. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Division over covid was all about facts. Masks work, no they don’t. Vaccines save lives, no they cause millions of “excess deaths”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Can boys who want to be girls join girls sports team and compete fairly? Concern for Biblical morality is in the background, but the public arguing is over the factual differences between boy and girl bodies, and how much of that is equalized by drugs and surgeries. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Legalization of marijuana starts and sputters as facts emerge and are alleged about the impact on crime, auto accidents, on the health of users, and on the  impact on holding down a job, which affects the whole economy. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Abortion controversy knows no comparable issue-driving dispute over whether babies of humans are real humans. There are practical difficulties in writing a “life of the mother” exception that will leave doctors free to save mothers who are truly endangered by their pregnancies without creating a loophole which babykillers will exploit, but there is no factual controversy about the full humanity of both mothers and their babies.    </ref>
The only disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and the indifferent.
<ref>'''More about “Disagreement about abortion is between unanimous fact finders and the indifferent.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Finding #2.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is for very good reasons like these that the findings of court-recognized fact finders are not just persuasive in court, but also in the Court of Public Opinion – in our culture in general. “Trust” and “Congress” aren’t a perfect fit, but compared to public trust in other human authorities it ranks high, while trust in juries and in experts ranks higher. We scrutinize the trustworthiness of political authorities  more than that of authorities on other subjects because what political authorities rule affects our choices in life. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But the willingness of most of society to live by most of the rules imposed by our government is an important measure of society’s trust in its authorities to create rules which mostly conform to reality. Which in turn is an important measure of society’s trust in the expertise of its authorities to grasp reality to a reasonable level. 
The fact is that there is no disagreement over the facts about preborn human life. The division is between authorities who rule babies are people, and courts and baby killers who say they don’t care about the facts. That should be very persuasive to simply point that out, both to the public and in court. The result we should expect is public rally around the facts.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unfortunately prolife legislatures have not cited this overwhelming evidence in court. Some litigants cite the expertise of new authorities that have not yet been tested in court, but not the tested evidence. This is a powerful resource that prolifers should use. In both kinds of courts.   </ref>

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0">Matthew 16:24  If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 

Huh? How do we fit this with Jesus coming so we could have Life “more abundantly”? 

How from our Cross is Life discovered? 
	
How from such pain, can come such joy? 

The Gospel tracts say Jesus suffered
	
so we’d need no works to employ.

Then what’s this Cross we take and follow?
	
Is there no “work” for us to do?

My Cup of Love I’ll lift and swallow.

I’ll “lose” false life, and find Life True. 


</span>

----

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

SCOTUS must accept legislative findings of facts that are not obviously irrational. “..the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed...not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators....” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938).
<ref>'''More about “US. v. Caroline Products”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''US. v. Caroline'' adds that the evidence in support of a law doesn’t have to be overwhelming: “....the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. ...But by their very nature such inquiries, where the legislative judgment is drawn in question, must be restricted to the issue whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it.” ''U.S. v. Carolene Products,'' 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is a fair explanation of the “rational basis” test by which courts evaluate laws that restrict non-fundamental rights. When rights are called “fundamental”, (an arbitrary classification according to Justice Thomas’ quotes later in this book), then “strict scrutiny” is the courtroom standard, by which judges are more skeptical of claims made about facts by court-recognized fact finders. ''Roe'' ruled that abortion is a “fundamental” right in 1973, but it lost that status in 1982 with ''Casey'', and ''Dobbs'' blew away the last traces of it. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Not that the evidence of court recognized fact finders, the power of legislative findings, and the general power of laws to shape court rulings, should be necessary to inform judges as if they were otherwise helplessly ignorant. The fact that this evidence and argument has not been before the Supreme Court does not excuse justices for ruling as if they had never heard it. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;True, it is considered unethical for judges to investigate facts on their own; they should normally limit their review of facts to those facts presented by the parties to the case, where the other side has an opportunity to respond. And no state law which has been reviewed by SCOTUS has asked for abortion to be outlawed because it murders little humans, so technically their ignorance, breathtaking as it is, can be excused. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But even without formal presentations of this evidence, the fact that little people are still people falls under “common knowledge”, of which judges frequently, and quite ethically, “take judicial notice”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Besides, this kind of evidence ''has'' been presented in court – in cases which the Supreme Court chose not to hear. And even those cases which SCOTUS turned down placed legal briefs in the record which were read by at least some of the clerks of the justices. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So the justices are not that innocent. Their ignorance is willful. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Still, prolifers share some of the blame for tiptoeing around ''Casey'' so long. ''Casey'' told states that no abortion restriction could be “constitutional” that had, for any part of its purpose, the reduction of abortion. ''Casey'' barred any restriction that ''“has the purpose'' or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”  ''Planned Parenthood v. CASEY'', 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, while lawmakers told prolife voters their laws were designed to reduce abortion as much as courts would let them, their argument in court avoided any suggestion that babies of people are people, in order to cover up their crime of caring.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus states deliberately kept evidence out of court that babies of people are people, for most of abortion’s half century. And again, judges think it is unethical to rule according to evidence submitted by neither party to a case. (They way they ruled in ''Roe''.)  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yet even today, after ''Casey'' is overturned and states are specifically invited by SCOTUS to outlaw abortion is much as voters will permit, I still read courtroom defenses that don’t mention the reason for outlawing abortion: that babies are people, which makes abortion murder. Why? Is it just 30 years of ''Casey''-inspired habit?</ref>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Besides the court-recognized fact finding authority of legislatures, courts must conform their rulings to laws until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional. No court has overturned the “unborn victims of violence” laws (based on “human babies are people”) of 38 states and Congress, despite many challenges.
<ref>'''More about “ 'Unborn victims of violence laws of 38 states...[have survived] many challenges"'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wikipedia tells us that not only have these laws been challenged many times in court and have always survived, (challenges “...have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts”), but also that abortionists and Democrats don’t quite understand how legal abortion has been able to survive the passage of these laws! They can hardly believe their good fortune, that even though these laws establish the unborn as “14th Amendment ‘persons’”, prolifers have still not cited them in court in support of outlawing abortion. Here is the Wikipedia excerpt:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most abortion-rights organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person", then they would have a constitutional right to life.1 The laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).2 Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.3
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Senator John Kerry, who was a main opponent of President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because '''the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."'''4
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support ''Roe v. Wade'', such as Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade.5
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A principle that allows language in law to not conflict with Roe, which logically should trigger Roe's "collapse" clause, was explained in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Until such language becomes the basis for laws that specify penalties for abortion, the issue is not even before the court, of whether or not such language conflicts with Roe, and if so, which should be struck down.6
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Representative Jerrold Nadler made a statement in voicing his opposition to a proposed federal law giving prenatal entities certain legal rights. '''The bill appears to contradict an important premise behind the constitutional right to seek an abortion: prenatal entities are not persons.'''7 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act] 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>Footnotes to this Wikipedia excerpt:</u>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1 ''Roe v. Wade's'' collapse clause says: “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. ''If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.'' The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2 State Homicide Laws that recognize unborn victims: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3 Constitutional Challenges to State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws. http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/statechallenges.html 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4 Fisher, Brian E. (2014). Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women. New York, NY: Morgan James Publishing. pp. 16. ISBN 9781614488415. https://archive.org/details/abortionultimate0000fish 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5 “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Roe v. Wade – Read what these supporters of legal abortion say about ‘fetal homicide’ laws” (PDF). National Right to Life Committee. 2004-02-02. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-04-20. Retrieved 2019-10-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20130420160514/http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/RoeSupportersSpeakUVVA.pdf 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6 “...until those courts have applied the...state's view of when life begins...to restrict appellees' [abortionists'] activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Sandra Day O'Connor added in a concurrence, “When the constitutional invalidity of a State's abortion statute actually turns upon the constitutional validity of Roe, there will be time enough to reexamine Roe, and to do so carefully.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7 Alongi, April (2008-09-01). “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act and its Impact on Reproductive Rights”. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice. 15 (1): 285 – via Scholarly Commons. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol15/iss1/11
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Roe'' is officially overturned anyway, of course. But it may be worth establishing that there is nothing in its rubble, or anywhere else, that could support any undermining  of the fact-finding authority of  “unborn victims of violence” laws to establish anything less than the full humanty/personhood of the unborn. If you still wonder if the way Roe minimized this evidence makes sense, the remainder of this Note is for you.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Roe'' said such laws don’t prove  lawmakers actually think babies are people: they probably just treat the baby’s death as a loss the way you would treat the loss of a dirt bike. Or of a puppy:
<blockquote>“...some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. ...In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973)</blockquote>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;An example of such a lawsuit occurred just three months before the ''Roe'' ruling. A car was hit by a Greyhound bus, killing a mother and her 8-1/2 month unborn child. www.masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass354.html. The administrator of their estate sued Greyhound for “wrongful death” of a human being. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Roe’s'' dismissal of evidence like that doesn’t work for today’s “unborn victims of violence” laws for two reasons: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) 28 of  the 38 states explicitly state that the premise of their law is the humanity/personhood of the unborn – while saying nothing about the interests of the parents, and 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) ''Roe'' was talking about parents bringing ''civil'' lawsuits against people whose negligence had caused the deaths of their unborn children, in which case the parents’ interest was indeed a factor. But unborn victims of violence laws are different: they are ''criminal'' charges, brought by county or state prosecutors, to vindicate the states’ interest in ''protecting life'', without asking the parents for permission. And the  penalties for killing an unborn baby are the same in 38 states as the penalties for killing the mother. This is not like the parents’ interest in the loss of some inanimate object, like a refrigerator. Or a dog.   </ref>

To do so would require a court to positively affirm that human life does not begin until much later, which no legal authority has done, and for which no evidence exists.

'''Legislatures.''' Lawmakers are there by the choice of a majority of voters. They are bombarded by information from experts. They are scrutinized by other lawmakers. Many are lawyers, some of whom are constitutional scholars and past or future judges. They set the salaries of judges, and have the power to hold impeachment trials of judges. Congress, the national legislature, scrutinizes Supreme Court justices. Many Congressmen are equally qualified: 15 U.S. Senators have served on the Supreme Court, and more were nominated.
<ref>'''More about “ 15 U.S. Senators served on the U.S. Supreme Court”'''
https://www.senate.gov/senators/ Supreme_Court.htm 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Congress approves Supreme Court justices. Not only does the Constitution give Congress that power, but Congress is well qualified: it contains many lawyers, many of whom qualify as constitutional scholars. At least that is what presidents have often thought, since 15 U.S. Senators served on the U.S. Supreme Court, not counting those nominated but not approved by the Senate. An example of a qualified Senator today is Ted Cruz, Republican from Texas, who as Texas Attorney General successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Cruz is on a “short list” of Supreme Court candidates published July 22, 2023 by presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.  www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-presidential-hopeful-ramaswamy-puts-ted-cruz-and-mike-lee-on-his-supreme-court-list-69655939 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lawmakers are also elected from the same populations that supply jurors.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So now that Congress and 38 states rule that all unborn babies are fully human from fertilization, their ruling on that fact carries at least as much legal weight as what the Supreme Court has ruled. ''Especially since the Supreme Court declines to rule:''

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(<u>22 State Policy Organizations</u>  amicus brief filed in Dobbs:) The positivistic [materialistic –  the belief that only physical things are real] reduction of persons represented by the Court’s abortion decisions has leavened the law in a way that curtails historic State policies grounded in deference to a given human nature and the common law rights that correspond to that nature. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"By purporting to leave the question of the meaning of persons in the Fourteenth Amendment unanswered, this Court’s holdings requiring States to abandon common and natural law commitments have effectively ratified a diminished view of the human person in law. These holdings have foisted upon the States a denatured anthropological model that prohibits them from ascribing objective meaning, dignity, and value to vulnerable persons. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The severe distortion of the human person in constitutional caselaw invites systemic effects well beyond the troubled context of abortion. If constitutional precept commands States to treat nascent human life as vacant of meaning and value apart from subjective individual determination or Court authorization, concurrently placed in doubt is the historic understanding of law as constrained by a reality prior to and beyond its coercive impositions. 
A national abortion-enablement policy is mournful in itself, but does not keep to itself. It corrodes the law altogether. [www.supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185004/20210727112957999_Dobbs Amici brief_FPC_ 7.23.21.pdf]

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The pretense that judges can’t tell if babies of humans are humans, maintained by Roe and retained by Dobbs, is a sophistry no longer believable if it ever was. When judges profess greater ignorance than that of children, they should not claim to know better than state legislatures.
Nathan Schlueter said nearly the same thing in a way that sounds more scholarly: “We cannot afford to feign skepticism about the personhood of unborn children any more than an earlier age could afford to feign skepticism about the personhood of African-Americans.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What makes that sophistry as legally absurd as it is spiritually blasphemous is that it plays games with reality. Blacks are people with souls equally loved by God with all other souls; so are babies. To imagine otherwise is as specious as telling the property tax collector that your house is actually a tent. A house is not a tent, and a person is not 3/5 of a person; nor is a person only “''potential'' life”. Nor can either slavery or murder be left for voters to decide whether to keep legal.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown</u>, in their amicus in Dobbs, wrote: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The sophistry at the heart of Roe is that the beginning of human life was ever a subject for speculation ...There was no doubt at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment as to whether the common definition of “person” included preborn persons. One-hundred and fifty years since, medical science has overwhelmingly confirmed this commonly understood inclusion of preborn persons in legal personhood. ...no other so-called constitutional right involves the “the purposeful termination of a potential life.” Yet even in Harris, we see the poison of Roe in the qualifier “potential.” ...By choosing Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968) as the test for legal personhood, this Court can reach a new milestone in the advancement of human rights. ...The Court started from the premise that “illegitimate children are not ‘nonpersons,’” insofar as they are “humans, live, and have their being.” Levy 391 U.S. at 70 (emphasis added). Thus all children who 1)are human, 2) are living, and 3) are in being, are “clearly” persons under the Equal Protection Clause."  [www.supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185063/20210727174713396_FINAL_Brown_ Weiskopf_Dobbs_Amicus.pdf]  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Trust” and “Congress” aren’t a perfect fit, but compared to public trust in other human authorities it ranks high, while trust in juries and in experts ranks higher. There is more public scrutiny of the trustworthiness of political authorities  more than that of authorities on other subjects because what political authorities rule affects more of us more. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But the willingness of most of society to live by most of the rules imposed by our government is an important measure of society’s trust in its authorities to create rules which mostly conform to reality. Which in turn is an important measure of society’s trust in the expertise of its authorities to grasp reality to a reasonable level. </ref>

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

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

It is for strong reasons that the findings of court-recognized fact finders are as respected in court as in the Court of Public Opinion.
<ref>More about '''“court-recognized fact finders are...respected in...the Court of Public Opinion.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>Juries, 2023, August 28</u>: “Nearly '''60% of Americans say they have at least a fair amount of trust in juries''', according to a new survey — '''higher than for any other group in the judicial system'''. But that trust may soon be put to the test, as former President Donald Trump appears to be headed for multiple trials in the coming year.   When asked specifically about Trump’s upcoming trials, a majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — said they did not think the courts would be able to seat impartial jurors.” - ''New York Times'', [https://news.yahoo.com/americans-still-put-trust-juries-123035691.html Americans still trust juries]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>News reporters, 2021, October 8</u>: 
“'''36 percent of survey respondents say they trust the press''' to report the news fully, fairly, and accurately (down from 40 percent who said the same last year)....29 percent have ‘not very much’ trust in media and 34 percent ‘none at all.’ ” Gallup poll, reported in ''Reason'', [https://reason.com/2021/10/08/trust-in-media-and-elected-officials-near-record-lows-in-gallup-poll/ Trust in media...near record lows]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>Judges, 2022, September 29</u>: “Trust in the judicial branch of the federal government has fallen by 20% since 2021.... The poll showed that only '''47 % of respondents expressed ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of trust''' in the judicial branch....(Trust among) Democrats...fell from 50% in 2021 to 25% in 2022, while independents’ trust fell by 5% to 46%. Republicans, by contrast, saw their confidence in the judiciary rise to 67%....In 2000, during the Bush v. Gore case about that year’s presidential election, trust in the judiciary was at 75%, a full 28% higher than it is currently.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As for the '''Supreme Court, “58% disapproved''' of their performance, a record high, while 40% approved, a record low.”
Republican confidence in SCOTUS got a boost from Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade  and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “Additionally, the judiciary has reversed several policy initiatives by the Biden administration. These include the federal mandate to wear masks on transportation (''Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden'') and the federal vaccine mandate on private businesses (''NFIB v. OSHA''). - ''Gallup.com'', [https://news.gallup.com/poll/185528/trust-judicial-branch-sinks-new-low.aspx Trust in judicial branch sinks to new low]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>State Legislatures & Governors, 2018, September</u>: The first percentage is the trust level among whites; the second is that among blacks: ''state legislature, 47/40%''; governor, 48/39%; state courts, 57/42%; local police, 70/39%; SCOTUS, 56/44%; Congress, 22/31%; President, 40/2%! - Black Trust in U.S. Legislatures, by Earnest Dupree III and John R. Hibbing, ''Legislative Studies Quarterly'', [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lsq.12402 Online Library]</ref>


----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />


----
<span style="color:#0f0">Mark 8:38  '''Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed''', when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

We Bible believing conservatives need to quit blaming social media and CIA censorship for our failures and stop censoring ourselves. 
	
I offer a way of stating evidence which no judge, news reporter, Democrat, or unbeliever can refute, along with answering objections that have crippled prolife messaging and legal strategy. But we despair of reaching those who stop their ears to evidence. “What’s the use of tightening our message? You’re preaching to the choir. We know babies are people but those other people have their opinion too.”
	
I’m not "preaching to the choir". I’m passing out a new composition to the choir for a coming TV special.
	 
Most of those who won’t listen, won’t vote either, rendering their willful ignorance relatively benign. Stop worrying about them. All they will do is hate you, lie about you, wreck your business – childish stuff. We progress by clearly articulating to the extent possible. The same Bible which is the main reason we care about babies promises all the protection we need to finish what we are here to do.
	
It isn’t just saving baby bodies where we self censor. Adult souls are lost. We hold back sharing what we know about God. Snap out of it. </span>

----

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

From Roe (1973) through Dobbs (2022), SCOTUS evaded that core issue.
<ref>More about '''“Dobbs dodged whether human babies  are people.”''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Mississippi said babies are real people, but deliberately refused to give that as a reason for outlawing their extermination in every state.''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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). 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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.”)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Dobbs'' explicitly acknowledged the central issue, and immediately explicitly declined to address it:

<blockquote>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</blockquote>

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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, White, and Thomas’ dissent in Casey, followed by a statement from Roe:

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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!...  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“[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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“...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.” 

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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, religiously invested, in ignoring that “elephant in the room”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;They are not alone: the same willful blindness reigns in the Court of Public Opinion. And even in many churches. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I don’t know if any state law presented such a case, since Rhode Island in 1973.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So why? Why have state legislatures dodged “it’s a baby” in their prolife laws, just as rigorously as SCOTUS ignores that central issue?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I know no answer for legal abortion’s first 19 years. But between 1992 and 2022 (from Casey to Dobbs) any state that wanted to focus judges’ attention to the evidence that babies are humans/people would have needed to enact a restriction of abortion that was substantial. That is because Casey, 1992, had 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 equipped with some other “legitimate government purpose” than saving lives. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In fact, presenting evidence of life was a no-no for any state trying to satisfy ''Casey'', since that would admit that part of the state’s purpose was to reduce abortion. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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 http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/IowaHeartbeatArguments.pdf )
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Texas AG Wade had said human babies are people, but only as a courtroom argument. 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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Judge Pettine, and he wasn’t alone, thought it irrelevant that human babies are ''in fact'' people, which “of course”, to use ''Roe’s'' phrase, makes killing them legally recognizable as murder. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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”, 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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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 Finding #3. ''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''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Device”? Correction of a precedent’s “erroneous factual premise” officially removes its Stare Decisis protection. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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 that is not enough “establishment” for the court to know a fact, it is impossible for ''any'' judge to know anything. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This challenge is not just to judges. It is to anyone who thinks abortion ought to remain legal. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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 “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 slavery.    </ref>
 	
But SCOTUS never ruled babies Non-Persons “as a Matter of Law”, as lower courts allege.
<ref>'''More about “Lower courts said Roe made babies non-persons ‘as a matter of law’, making the fact that babies are people ‘irrelevant’!”''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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”? 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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”?  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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. <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually ''an erroneous factual premise'' is an official exception to ''Stare Decisis,'' [which 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”!!!'' (See my humorous video series, “Trial By Jury 5-part video”, at http://saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I’m repeating myself, aren’t I?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Since Dobbs, abortion is no longer “constitutionally protected”, but SCOTUS has still not refuted the theory that babies are nonpersons “as a matter of law”. <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore these lingering lower court precedents – there are many of them – need to be addressed. See Appendix F of the book linked in Footnote 5, for analysis of several rulings, showing their inconsistency with SCOTUS rulings. 
Cases examined in Appendix F and a statement from each: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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). 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''   
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Juries are supposed to be court-recognized fact finders. Their verdict is that abortion is in fact murder. Murder is not constitutionally protected.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&n''bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Not only that, but the judicial dishonesty that created juries was more about law than facts, when the Magna Charta resurrected them from the Bible. (Called “judges” in the KJV.)'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''See Finding #8. No reading of the Constitution can logically legalize abortion without legalizing slavery.''  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''“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”.''    </ref>

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:
<ref>More about '''“a hypothetical which no court has disputed”''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.” [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.] 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dobbs v. Jackson, which overruled Roe in 2022, likewise left Roe’s hypothetical in place, saying  Dobbs v. Jackson said “our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre-natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests....”   </ref>
“[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....”
<ref>'''More about “The [abortionist’s lawyer] conceded as much....”'''  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Read it for yourself at Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-157 (1973)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(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.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The Roe Court demurred on the central inquiry. When the case was decided, the presence of a life inside a mother’s womb was a debatable topic, largely informed by religious and philosophical perspectives. 410 U.S. at 159-60 (passing on “the difficult question of when life begins,” referencing differing belief systems).2 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 way to denote the State’s interest.”  (Amicus brief filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' by <u>Center for Religious Expression</u>  www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185542/20210802162418144_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Center%20for%20Religious%20Expression.pdf)    </ref>

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....”
<ref>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....”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dobbs v Jackson, 945 F. 3d 265, 597 US _ (2022)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Hmmm. No page numbers given.)   </ref>

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.
<ref>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.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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/
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But Justice Kavanaugh came close. So his reasoning needs to be understood and corrected.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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,

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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.”  

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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....” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thank you for noticing. Let us pray you will notice that the converse is true according to Dobbs’ 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...
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''“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 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. 

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"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.] 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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"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?" [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185037/20210727131024868_19-1392 tsac Lonang Institute.pdf]

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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, are better informed. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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, let’s let people in Southern states vote on whether to have slaves! 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Although today “blue states” will more likely vote for slavery, since the Democrats that defended slavery militarily through 1865, opposed Martin Luther King’s reforms, and today cruelly treat “disloyal” black conservatives, now dominate “blue states”. 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.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''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.'''   </ref>

Dobbs left in place Roe’s observation that “establishment” of this fact, independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment,
<ref>More about '''“Roe’s hypothesis that this proof, [that babies are in fact people] independently of any law, ruling, or future constitutional amendment...(dictates abortion’s legality).”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 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 still can’t know, but on the basis of babies’ value to voters!  (See Finding #1, Note #1.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you agree with Schluetter, that such agnosticism is error? Or do you agree that it is a great thing for voters to decide whether to continue mass murder? 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Schluetter’s final paragraph from the more complete excerpt in note 1, Finding #1:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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.”    </ref>
dictates whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime.
<ref>More about '''“whether abortion is legally recognizable as a right or as a crime” is determined by the fact that babies are people, said Roe, a hypothesis which Dobbs did not challenge.''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.’
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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.”   </ref>

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
<ref>More about '''“This established fact is not disestablished by any judge’s claimed inability to understand it.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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)  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>Priests For Life</u> 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): 

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"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."

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(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.)
R<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;oe 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)   </ref>


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.
<ref>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....
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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 ?’ .... 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“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 www.firstthings.com/article/2003/01/ constitutional-persons-an-exchange-on-abortion a debate with Judge Bork. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Equal protection of the laws is a principle throughout the Bible but not found in other religions. For example, 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.   </ref>

If only those legally recognized as “persons” were people, slavery could still be legal and the 14th Amendment would mean nothing. Slavery states would merely need to classify their victims as only 3/5 human. The Amendment protects those who are IN FACT people – what is irrelevant is whether babies are people “as a matter of law”.
<ref>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’.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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: such evidence would “of course” be dispositive. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Should we use the word “people” vs. the word “persons”?'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We unworthy, insufficiently educated prolifers, though unable to grasp exalted baby killing grammar, yet 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 “persons”.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''But they are the same word.'' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But you don’t believe me, do you? So here is from a grammar website: [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/person-persons-or-people]
	Grammar > Easily confused words > Person, persons or people? from English Grammar Today

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.”''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''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.”]]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.”''    </ref>

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />

====Part 2: the Power of Personhood====

No Greener Light, than the laws, findings, and precedents we already have, is required for legislatures to outlaw abortion and expect courts to stay out of the way of saving lives. 

----
<span style="color:#0f0">Luke 22:24  And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25  And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26  But ye shall not be so: but '''he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.''' 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

How excited the world is about any ceremonies, parades, or gossip involving the English monarch or the Roman Pope! That public admiration was enjoyed by virtually every king and dictator throughout human history, even when they had, and used, great power to  enslave, torture, and execute their critics. Despite their terror, they were seen as “beneficial”, as Jesus observed. They were even worshiped as “gods”, as in Japan until 1945 and in North Korea today. 

Jesus honors service: moms serving their babies, not vice versa; the public saving babies, not just their own comfort. God serves us, and recruits partners. The two systems are precursors of Heaven and Hell.</span>
----




=====Finding #4. Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life=====


Detectable heartbeats and brain waves are evidence that a person has not yet died, throughout 
state and federal law.
<ref>More about '''“...throughout state and federal law.”'''

[https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/the-challenges-of-defining-and-diagnosing-brain-death HopkinsMedicine.org]</ref> 
Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that a person has begun to live. 

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0">Matthew 10:38 ...'''he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.''' 39  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 

Huh? Didn’t Jesus just say, a few pages ago, that He came so we could have “life more abundantly”? How is taking up a cross “more abundant life”? 

How is “losing my lfe” the way – the only way – to “find” it? 
	
Is Jesus going to explain himself better, a few pages later? 
</span>

----

=====Finding #5. Voters should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, but in the same sense that legislatures regulate the prosecution of all ''other'' murder laws.=====

But not in the sense of absolute discretion to leave wholesale murders of an unwanted group of humans completely unregulated. That interpretation of Dobbs’ holding is premised on a “mistake of fact”, which is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.
<ref>More about '''“a ‘mistake of fact’ is an official exception to Stare Decisis protection.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, described ''Roe v. Wade'' as “precedent upon precedent”, and yet when asked by a Democrat about a precedent that ''Democrats'' don’t like, he explained that discovery of a “mistake of facts” is one of the “Stare Decisis” grounds for overturning precedents. Here is an excerpt: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Whitehouse''': “The hypothetical problem that I have has to do with an appellate court which makes a finding of fact. Asserts a proposition of fact to be true. And upon that proposition hangs the decision that it reaches. The question is, what happens when that proposition of fact...turns out not to be true?” ...
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Kavanaugh''': “[This is] wrapped up in a question of precedent and Stare Decisis. And one of the things you could look at, one of the factors you could look at, how wrong was the decision, and if it is based on an erroneous factual premise, that is clearly one of the factors... Mistakes of history. Sometimes there are mistakes of history in decisions and mistakes of fact.” Day 3 of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Beginning at from 4:52:11 to 4:53:50 of the video posted at [http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSyWoxGbpFg Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown</u>, in the brief they filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'', said “As Justice Gorsuch wrote in his Ramos concurrence, ‘stare decisis isn’t supposed to be the art of methodically ignoring what everyone knows to be true.’ ''Ramos v. Louisiana'', 590 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op. at 23)."  [www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185063/20210727174713396_FINAL_Brown_Weiskopf_Dobbs_Amicus.pdf]</ref>

The “Mistake of Fact” that is the premise of letting voters decide whether to continue judge-mandated genocide according to the “value” they place on little people is that that the humanity of babies of humans is either unknowable or irrelevant. That premise was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.
<ref>More about '''“That premise (that no one knows if babies are people) was explicit in Roe and Casey, and implicit in Dobbs.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See the quotes from these three cases in Finding #2.  </ref>

That is an erroneous factual premise. The fact that unborn babies of humans are humans is neither unknowable nor irrelevant. It is verifiable and dispositive.
<ref>More about '''“(the fact that little humans are humans) is verifiable and dispositive.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Scrupulously neutral” was Justice Kavanaugh’s idea, in his Dobbs concurrence, about how to keep an abortion ruling virtuous. But what virtuous person leaves the lives of millions to be decided by their value to voters? 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dobbs didn’t answer that central question. Was it the same hope expressed in Roe “that the termination would not extinguish the life of a human person[?] That belief is no longer factually tenable given the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the origin and development of the human fetus.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So stated the <u>Illinois Right to Life</u> amicus submitted in Dobbs v. Jackson. [See http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148202/20200720191618686_19-1392%20BRIEF%20FOR%20AMICUS%20CURIAE%20ILLINOIS%20RIGHT%20TO%20LIFE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20PETITIONERS.pdf] “Roe also rests on a determination that the humanity and personhood of a human fetus was not generally recognized in law. That legal context has changed as well.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dobbs corrected Roe’s history, showing protection of unborn babies was “well rooted in America’s legal history”, (although concluding only that abortion was not).
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But IRTL goes farther, noting the consensus of court-recognized fact finders: “Among other changes in the law, fetuses are now protected as human beings under laws prohibiting fetal homicide. Other laws, such as ‘heartbeat’ laws and laws protecting against fetal pain, which are increasingly being enacted by the states, demonstrate their interest in protecting the youngest and most vulnerable humans. Finally, changes in the laws and the availability of social services that support and protect pregnant women have ameliorated the plight of pregnancy and lessened the burden of child-rearing. All of these changes rob Roe of its factual and legal underpinnings.” (And rob Dobbs of any conceivable justification for its “scrupulous neutrality”.)</ref>

The consensus of court-recognized fact finders cures that knowledge deficit, canceling that Dobbs holding interpretation, while reinforcing Dobbs’ other two holdings that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “Roe and Casey are overruled”, and requiring the outlawing of baby killing in every state.
<ref>More about '''“Dobbs + Facts requires outlawing abortion in every state.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To select this one invidious [unwanted, unloved, discriminated against] class of human beings - unborn babies - to be utterly unprotected from murderers is as prohibited by the 14th Amendment as designating any other class of human beings to be unprotected. Examples from America’s past: blacks, Indians, Jews, Catholics. Today, Christians, Republicans, undocumented immigrants. </ref>

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0b0">Matthew 25:24  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, '''I knew [you can do anything without me]''' 25  '''And I [felt useless],''' and went and [buried your talent]: lo, [you can have it back]. 26  His lord answered..., '''Thou wicked and [lazy] servant, thou knewest that [I do good without you]: 27  Thou oughtest therefore to have [used the ability I gave you to do good for others]'''. ...30  And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness.... 

Matthew 13:44 praises the man who digs up Heaven’s treasure with joy. Here He condemns a man who buries a treasure for fear, or lack of confidence/ faith that God will make good use of his efforts. 

We are afraid to interact with people as needed to overcome evil and do good. 

Jesus promises capacity to pull down entire mountains of evil, but our faith is so weak that we don’t even try, or we tell ourselves it is enough to stomp on an ant hill. We fear being mocked by God and man for failing. Solution: don’t try.

Job 35:1-8 agrees that we can’t personally enrich God. But Matthew 25:31-46 says when we bless others, God feels blessed; and conversely, when we ignore others’ needs, God feels rejected. </span>

----

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

Part of Roe’s definition of “person” was “infused with a soul”.
<ref>More about '''“Part of Roe’s definition of ‘person’ was ‘infused with a soul’.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“These disciplines  [philosophy, theology, civil law, canon law] variously approached the question [of  “when life begins”] in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 US 113, 133. </ref> 
Roe thus affirmed the belief of most of society, a belief logically demanded by the common knowledge that humans are distinguished from animals by consciousness which features a capacity for choices at variance with physical needs: to love, as defined by John 15:13, to sacrifice one's interests for another.
<ref>More about '''“Love, as defined by John 15:13, means to sacrifice one's interests for another.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;John 15:13  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  </ref> 
And conversely, to destroy one’s own body.
<ref>More about '''“Our ability to destroy our own bodies (proves our souls are more than our bodies)”''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2 Samuel 17:23  And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Matthew 27:5  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. </ref>

This, along with self awareness and the capacity to choose between good and evil
<ref>More about '''“The capacity to choose between good and evil (can’t be explained by any known physical process)”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Joshua 24:15  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. </ref>
– to behave either as an angel or as a demon, can’t be explained by any known physical process. These differences justify legal protection of humans beyond protections of animals. 

Since “infused with a soul” is a common definition of “person” besides being Roe’s definition, and a “soul” without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined, the consensus of fact finders is, in effect, that abortion kills babies with conscious souls.

Souls have no known pre-conscious stage. The lack of any physical explanation for a conscious soul rules out any reason to infer immaturity of consciousness from physical immaturity, and is consistent with the report in Luke 1:44 that a baby at 6 months heard a righteous voice [and/or felt the righteous Presence of God] and responded with joy,
<ref>More about '''“a baby at 6 months...felt the...Presence of God and responded with joy (proving the choice before birth to prefer good over evil)”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Luke 1:39  And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40  And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41  And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42  And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44  For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Roe v. Wade “opened the door” to a Bible study of abortion as part of our national debate, by claiming that the reason “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” because “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer” since, after all, doctors and preachers can’t agree: “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It's not just that ''Roe'' "opened the door", which is the name for a technical legal principle that lawyers use in court to get around a judge's "in limine" order to not say certain words or offer certain evidence, kind of a "loophole" around the 1st Amendment prohibition of establishing a religion.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Roe'' couldn't legalize abortion without neutralizing somehow public concern that babies of humans might turn out to be humans. Justice Blackmun understood there are two sources of authority on that issue: medicine, which documents that unborn babies have physical human bodies, and theology, which documents that unborn babies have souls made in the Image of God. That is why ''Roe'' devoted many pages of selective evidence and tortured logic to justify its conclusion that doctors and preachers can't agree, so how can mere Supreme Court Justices know? (For their exact words, see Finding #1, Footnote #3.) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The most recent Christian that they consulted was Thomas Aquinas who died in 1274 AD! Most important, they didn’t consult God! One citation to one Bible verse is in one footnote, followed by not an analysis but an insinuation. So to patch up SCOTUS’ confusion about whether God can agree with Himself, you can find a prolife Bible study in Appendix E of the book cited in footnote #5.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What was Blackmun thinking, to paint doctors and preachers as greater authorities than himself on the dispositive fact question in abortion policy, and then to torture historical facts to fantacize serious disagreement? What ''Roe'' was correct about, and that many prolifers today are incorrect about, is that leaving out the Biblical evidence really does leave prolifers with an unnecessarily weak argument. Let's admit it, it really is hard to grasp the full humanity of a single fertilized egg. I didn't come by the conviction automatically or naturally; I had to study and believe Scripture until my incredulity over protecting such a tiny little thing melted away.  I AM FAR FROM ALONE.   
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But the "personhood focus" of the Scripture is not on the physical, but on the soul. So why will Bible believers give the public every other reason for saving unborn lives than the one that was strong enough to persuade them?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;50 years, and mass murder of babies is still fully legal in almost every state! So much evil runs free, after God is censored and then forgotten! This really is about more than "just" infanticide. It's about every other political issue about which God's views are clear. And it's not "just" about the future and survival of our nation. It's about Heaven and Hell for eternity. Not just for others, either. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Footnote #4 of Finding #11 for a discussion of the constitutionality of quoting Bible verses in a bill of a state legislature. </ref>
a response not everybody chooses, indicating that even the capacity for choosing between good and evil precedes birth. 

Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”, or between “meaningful life” and life which courts are free to terminate. 
<ref>More about '''“Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing ... between “meaningful life” and life which courts are free to terminate”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“In ''Roe'', this Court determined that the state’s interest in the protection of human life became compelling at viability, relying on the fetus’ ‘capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.’ Id. at 163. By contrast, in ''Cruzan'' this Court rejected the idea of ‘meaningful life,’ holding that ‘a State may properly decline to make judgments about the ‘quality’ of life that a particular individual may enjoy, and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual.’ Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 282; Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 729 (1997) (quoting Cruzan and holding that the state ‘has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life’) (emphasis added). See also ''Britell v. United States,'' 372 F.3d 1370, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (‘It is not the role of the courts to draw lines as to which fetal abnormalities or birth defects are so severe as to negate the state's otherwise legitimate interest in the fetus' potential life.’); ''State v. Final Exit Network, Inc.,'' 889 N.W.2d 296, 305-06 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (‘The state has a compelling interest in the preservation of D.D.’s life, and the prevention of her suicide, regardless of her incurable [non-viable] condition.’)”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This excerpt is from the amicus brief in Dobbs submitted by <u>Dr. Robin Pierucci, M.D.</u> [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148122/20200720132309321_19-1392%20Dobbs%20v.%20JWHO%20petition%20AC%20LLDF.pdf]</ref>

Without such a line, there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. No baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary.        

The failure of some to grasp the humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of quite a number of distinct groups of born persons.

As Roe correctly established, it can be useful in clarifying fundamental rights, such as the unalienable right to life of every human, to consult the religions from which they were copied into America’s founding documents. But there can be equal “freedom of religious expression” for other religions only to the extent they equally reverence all human life, and their expression does not violate fundamental rights.
<ref>More about '''“Freedom of religious expression” is not for religions whose “expression” violates fundamental rights of others.'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''For as long as courts are allowed to remain “scrupulously neutral” about whether the babies we are slaughtering are people, “freedom of religious expression” for Molech worshipers will remain perfectly logical.''' 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Will prolifers sit on their hands over this, moaning, “they have a point; they have THEIR religion TOO”, while courts give satanists a “religious exemption” from abortion restrictions? 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Or will prolifers end courtroom “scrupulous neutrality” about murder, with robust affirmation of the consensus of court-recognized fact finders? 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Satanic Temple stated: “It would be unconstitutional to require a waiting period before receiving Holy Communion; it would be illegal to demand Muslims receive counseling prior to Ramadan. We expect the same rights as any other religious organization.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/satanic-temple-abortion-religious-ritual-claims-it-provides-spiritual-comfort-to-women.html
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Holy Communion doesn’t murder anyone. Although it is called the literal blood of Jesus, it kills no human but only saves souls. Ramadan? Well, our laws let Moslems BELIEVE they should go out and slaughter “disbelievers”, so long as they don't DO it. The relevant precedent is ''Employment Division v. Smith''. Smoking illegal Peyote, though “religious”, doesn't exempt worshipers from the workplace consequences of not showing up at work. (That had to go to court?!)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Deuteronomy 13:2, 6, 13,  draws the same line between “belief” and “serving other gods” which requires human sacrifice, temple prostitution, war, and other “crimes against humanity”.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Satanic Temple Sues States for Infringing on 'Religious Abortion Ritual'”, Newsweek, 10/4/22: “The Satanic Temple is suing Idaho and Indiana over their near-total abortion bans, arguing that the laws violate religious freedoms....The view of The Satanic Temple is that a fetus is a part of a woman's body,...Restrictive laws also prevent members of The Satanic Temple from holding the ‘Satanic Abortion Ritual,’ which is fundamental to their religious beliefs...This ritual, which includes the abortion itself, is designed to cast off the guilt and shame that may be imposed on a woman choosing an abortion....During the ritual, the patient meditates and recites Tenet III and Tenet V of The Satanic Temple Tenets....Tenet III says, ‘One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.’ Tenet V says, ‘Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.’ Mac Naughton said. ‘And what works for everybody is that you've got to respect everybody’s point of view. When you start taking your religious principles and forcing other people to live by them, that’s not the America I want to live in.’” https://www.newsweek.com/satanic-temple-sues-states-infringing-religious-abortion-ritual-indiana-idaho-1748758
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;https://thesatanictemple.com, accessed May 15, 2023, says “Abortion Access After Roe v. Wade - The Satanic Temple is the leading beacon of light in the battle for abortion access. With Roe v Wade overturned, a religious exemption will be the only available challenge to many restrictions to access. TST stands alone because we are the only entity that can assert a religious liberty claim that terminating a pregnancy is a central part of a religious ritual that encourages self-empowerment and affirms bodily autonomy.  This means that '''the imposition of waiting periods and mandatory counseling is akin to demanding a waiting period and counseling before one can be baptized or receive communion.''' Clearly, that would be a violation of religious liberty. While the SCOTUS decision is clearly a major set back, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed religious rights. <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Satanic Temple is currently suing the state of Texas to protect our civil rights. Our Texas claims are untethered to the due process Clause. They are a direct interpretation of the right of conscience in the Free Exercise Clause. We have requested alternative science-based abortion counseling in Minnesota. We will also be suing the FDA for unrestricted religious access to Mifepristone and Misoprostol.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Their current lawsuits are listed at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/legal-action. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty  warned in its amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson about “a novel view under which their religious views would dictate what laws may govern every American, even those with different faiths or no faith at all.” [http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184865/20210726093205304_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Jewish%20Coalition%20for%20Religious%20Liberty.pdf]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;JCRL noted a 1992 amicus by Planned Parenthood that didn’t just ask for an exemption from a law, but for the repeal of a law that someone doesn’t believe in: “in the face of the great moral and religious diversity in American society over abortion and in the light of Jewish traditions which in some cases command abortion, and in many others permit it, the existing constitutional rules, set down by Roe v. Wade, should be maintained ... .” JCRL said “Under the religious-veto view of the Free Exercise Clause, every decision in favor of a religious adherent would entirely foreclose the state from pursuing its chosen interests.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;JCRL is concerned about ''Employment Division v. Smith'', 494 U.S. 872, 888 (1990), in which two natives working for a drug rehabilitation program were fired for smoking illegal peyote at a religious event, and their applications for unemployment compensation were denied. SCOTUS agreed with that denial, fearing that accommodating them would be “courting anarchy”. Examples in the ruling: the military draft, drug laws, paying taxes, child neglect laws, vaccination laws, traffic laws, minimum wage, child labor, animal cruelty, environmental protection, and racial equality. Religious exemptions have been sought in all those areas. JCRL thinks <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;was too strict, and is glad that “this Court has recently loosened Smith’s strictures, and has signaled that it may reconsider them entirely.” But JCRL is concerned about going beyond a religious exemption for an individual, to what Planned Parenthood asked: invalidation of a law for everyone because a few don’t believe in it. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Not that there is a stark difference for you if you are a baby about to be murdered, whether your murderer’s “religion” is as bound to Hell as your murderer. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;True religion prohibits individual murder and mass murder alike. True religion is against individual “religious” exemptions for satanists to murder babies. It is against legalizing murdering babies for everyone.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The legal antidote is robust affirmation of the consensus of court-recognized Fact Finders that babies are people, which makes killing them legally recognizable as murder, which the 14th Amendment doesn’t let ''any'' state legalize. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But if law favors “true religion”, what about equal protection for the rights of false religions? Shouldn’t jihadists have equal rights to behead Christians, do “honor killings” of their wives and daughters if they are raped, and keep sex slaves? What about the rights of pedophiles to rape little boys? And the rights of sadists to torture people during sex? Or the rights of kleptomaniacs to shoplift? Or the rights of satanists to sacrifice babies and children, along with adult women? Or the rights of Hindus to burn widows alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres? Or the rights of cannibals to eat you? Don’t they have a right to their religion too? 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;How has America made it this far with such questions unclear?
Continued in Note #4, Finding #11.</ref>

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0b0">Ecclesiastes 9:10 '''Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;''' for there is no work [thing made], nor device [computation], nor knowledge [education], nor wisdom [skill], in the grave [eternity], whither thou goest. 
	
1 Corinthians 13:8  '''Charity never faileth''' [the love we develop here will follow us to eternity]: but whether there be '''prophecies''' [special revelations], they shall fail [be rendered useless]; whether there be '''tongues''' [languages that prevent communication with everyone], they shall cease [pause; stop]; whether there be '''knowledge, it shall vanish away''' [be rendered useless]. ...10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.... 12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 

Our covered wagons lie unused and useless in museums because now we have much better cars, trains, and planes. We don’t send messages by runners because now we have cell phones. Will we need no manufactured products in Heaven because like “Q” in Star Trek we will be able to create by word and thought, our own “holodecks”? Will we need no books, studies, or skill development because our minds will be “online” with a Search Engine operating on II? (Infinite Intelligence) 
	
Yet there is important work to do here which can’t be done after we die: overcome obstacles with limited resources, which challenge and develop our faith. 
	
Football would be a lot easier without an opposing team. Carrying our ball to the goal would be so easy an old man could do it in a wheel chair. But what “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) would watch it? How interesting would it be? What movie would be made of it? </span>

----

====Part 3: Myth Busters====

----
<span style="color:#0b0">Matthew 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth...20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. ...25 ...Take no thought for [don’t be so worried about] your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? ...30  Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, ...shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? ...32 ...your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. ...33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 

Love is the exception to “you can’t take it with you”, according to 1 Corinthians 13:8 (compared with the following verses). Let’s work hard, and love hard. Let’s choose “life more abundantly”. Here and now is our opportunity. 
	
Heaven is no retirement home. Luke 19:17 says the greater authority and opportunity we will have in Heaven is like being put in charge of ten cities, in Heaven, if while on Earth we have done ten times as much good, serving others out of love, as we seemed to have the capacity. 
----

=====Finding #7. Congress has ''Already'' Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment ''already'' authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion. It does ''not'' allow Congress to legalize murder in ''any'' state.=====
 
Congress established in 2004 that: “‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’...means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). 
<ref>More about '''“‘unborn child’ means...a member of the species Homo Sapiens...”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Federal law recognizes human infants in utero, and premature infants born alive, as persons under the law at any gestational age. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes the “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” whose death or injury in the course of a federal crime is subject to prosecution the same as that of any born child or adult individual. 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d), (a)(1). 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act establishes even more broadly that, for purposes of ‘any Act of Congress’ and ‘any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States,’ ‘the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” 1 U.S.C. § 8 (a). (From the amicus brief of <u>Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide</u> filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson''. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185155/20210728163153060_Amici Brief of CMP-Daleiden.pdf)</ref>

This fact is not diminished by clause (c) which does not “permit [authorize] the prosecution of any person for...an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained.…”
<ref>More about '''“clause (c) does not ‘permit [authorize] the prosecution of any person for...an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained.…”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finding #7 refutes the official position 19 years ago of prolifers and Republican Congressmen that 1841(c) robs clause (d) of any power to undermine Roe. “By its express terms, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not apply to, nor in any way affect nor alter, the ability of a woman to have an abortion.” - House Judiciary Committee report, 2/11/2004 [https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/unbornvictims/UVVAHJCreport2004.pdf NRLC.org]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal) ...It is well established that unborn victims laws (also known as ‘fetal homicide’ laws) do not conflict with the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion decrees (Roe v. Wade, etc.). The state laws mentioned above have had no effect on the practice of legal abortion.” - Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 4/1/2004 nrlc.org.  [https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/keypointsuvva NRLC.org]  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Clause (d) has not proved able to end legal abortion only because prolife lawmakers have not cited it in support of that goal. Which has been a total pleasant surprise to Democrats. These quotes are repeated from Note #2, Finding #3: 

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Senator John Kerry, who was a main opponent of President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Representative Jerrold Nadler made a statement in voicing his opposition to a proposed federal law giving prenatal entities certain legal rights. “The bill appears to contradict an important premise behind the constitutional right to seek an abortion: prenatal entities are not persons.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act] </ref>

A law imperfectly aligned with facts does not block future lawmakers from making corrections, and states don’t need Congress’ “permission” to obey the 14th Amendment. 

The reason they have had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in their authority to establish dispositive facts, but  because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited them to establish what Roe said once “established” would “of course” require the end of legal abortion. 

Not only is the 2004 law unmitigated evidence of life strong enough to “collapse” legal abortion by itself, but it would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.
<ref>More about '''“(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Professor Nathan Schluetter: “While I don’t object to a constitutional amendment that would extend special protection to unborn persons-especially since such an amendment would presumably lodge protection for the unborn beyond the discretion of partisan courts, and also dispose of any potential problems with respect to state action-'''such an amendment is constitutionally superfluous.''' The issue of protecting the basic rights of persons from hostile or indifferent state governments was constitutionally '''resolved almost one hundred and fifty years ago in the Fourteenth Amendment,''' purchased with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the awful crucible of the Civil War. The constitutional debate over abortion, then, is ultimately a rehearsal of the very same questions that shook the nation during the Civil War.”  (See Finding #11 for more about the Civil War context of the 14th Amendment.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, except to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws.

This rejects the emphasis on getting “personhood” amendments to constitutions as if that must be done before anything else can be effective. More personhood amendments can only help. But there are already enough – 38 states and Congress – to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. </ref>
No other Constitutional Amendment is relied on for evidence of a fact. An Amendment can bind courts. But establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court draws not only courts, but society, closer to reality.
<ref>More about '''“Establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court will not only do that, but will also make society at peace with outlawing infanticide.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See Finding #3.</ref>

[Each state should add a similar point about its own “unborn victims of violence” law.]

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0b0">Philippians 4:11...'''I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. '''12  I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13  I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. 
	
In other words, “I've been initiated; I have a doctorate; I am an expert; I have a diploma from the School of Hard Knocks.”
	
“School of Hard Knocks” is a cynical idiom.  But learning to be content with whatever work lies before us, and not just content but ready to do it “with all our might”, is a key to “life more abundantly”. 
	
The fact is what we choose to like is completely arbitrary. We choose to not like to wash dishes but rather to like video games. The choice is proved arbitrary by the facts that (1) some people like to wash dishes but hate video games, and (2) the same person who hated hard work but must do it anyway, learns it is challenging, and is inspired to excellence, and is sorry he did not master it sooner.  We choose to hate pain, but not always; hard work requires a certain amount of exhaustion and concentration to a painful degree, and athletes suffer pain as part of their sport and love it. 
	
This proves the capacity God put within each of us to learn to love every challenge, every duty, every obstacle, that God orchestrates in our lives, to make our lives full of purpose, and fun.</span>

----

=====Finding #8: Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”.<ref>More about “Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are ‘Persons’ ”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Although ''Roe'' defines “persons” as “recognizably human”,  Roe encouraged the myth that not all humans are people by saying “...the [lawyer for the babies] conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. ...the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.” 410 U.S. 113, 157 (1973)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Notice that this is not a positive statement that babies are ''not'' people; it alleges a lack of evidence that babies ''are'' people. This is ruled out as a positive statement by at least three ''Roe'' statements: its “collapse” clause which acknowledges the possibility of that evidence being “established”, its “the judiciary...is in no position to speculate [about] when life begins” clause, and its “we would not have (legalized abortion if we knew baby humans are humans)” clause.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Roe’s'' seemingly new legal distinction between “human” and “person” was clear enough for much hand-wringing in prolife literature, culminating in the founding of PersonhoodUSA (www.personhood.org) whose “Strategy” category begins with a legal thesis arguing for treating the two words as synonymous. (www.personhood. org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Lugosi-The-Constitutionality-of-Personhood.pdf)  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The thesis observes: “Justice Stevens, [in ''Casey''] in concurrence with the majority, correctly observed that there has never been a single dissent (let alone a majority opinion) by any Justice on the fundamental issue decided in Roe that the fetus was not a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ''Planned Parenthood v. CASEY'', 505 U.S. 833, 913 (1992)  the thesis continues: “Justice Blackmun made the same point in ''Casey'', and added that even the Solicitor General in oral submissions before the Court did not question the constitutional non-personhood status of the unborn child.” (p. 932)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here is Blackmun’s statement in ''Casey'', which the PersonhoodUSA thesis summarizes:

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“No Member of this Court - nor for that matter, the Solicitor General, ... has ever questioned '''our holding in Roe that an abortion is not ‘the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.’''' 410 U.S., at 159 . Accordingly, a State's interest in protecting fetal life is not grounded in the Constitution. Nor, consistent with our Establishment Clause, can it be a theological or sectarian interest. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obtetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 778, 747 , (1986) (STEVENS, J., concurring). It is, instead, a legitimate interest grounded in humanitarian or pragmatic concerns.”

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is hypocritical that Blackman censored any “theological...interest”, after authoring ''Roe'' in which his alleged lack of consensus among theologians as well as among doctors was his primary rationale for excusing judicial ignorance of “when life begins””

<blockquote>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)  </blockquote>

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Nor is Roe’s following statement a positive statement that SCOTUS knows babies are ''not'' people: 

<blockquote>“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.</blockquote>  </ref>=====

 Neither Dobbs nor Roe distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”.
<ref>More about '''“Neither Dobbs nor Roe distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”.'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Professor Schluetter: “The word ‘person’...has been given a very liberal construction by the Supreme Court to include all human beings, be they minors, prisoners, aliens, enemies of the state, and even corporations. Indeed, apart from  Roe , the Court has  never once differentiated between ‘person’ and ‘human being,’ nor has it ever excluded a human being from the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [And even in Roe, part of Roe’s definition of “person” was “recognizably human”.]
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“So it is a fair legal inference to say that if it can be demonstrated that an unborn child is a human being, then that child will constitute a ‘person’ for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.”  </ref>

The word “person” in the 14th Amendment means “An individual human being...man, woman, or child...consisting of body and soul.” The word “child” in the definition includes unborn children, since to be “with child” means to be pregnant.3   
<ref>More about “The word ‘person’ in the 14th Amendment means ‘An individual human being...man, woman, or child...consisting of body and soul.’ ” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Judges look everywhere but in a dictionary to learn what Americans who ratified the 14th Amendment understood the word “person” to mean. In 1868, Webster’s dictionary, published in 1828, was the only American dictionary.

<blockquote>https://webstersdictionary1828.com.   “People: 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.</blockquote>
    
<blockquote>“Person: 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being.</blockquote>
    
<blockquote>“Child: 1. A son or a daughter; a male or female descendant, in the first degree; the immediate progeny of parents; applied to the human race, and chiefly to a person when young. The term is applied to infants from their birth...To be with child [means] to be pregnant. Genesis 16:11, Gen 29:36.”</blockquote>

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Blackstone was a widely consulted source of understanding of legal terms. An amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by “Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George” says:

<blockquote>When House Judiciary Committee Chairman James F. Wilson introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1866, he... was quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries’ first Book, ‘Of the Rights of Persons,’ and its first Chapter, ‘Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals.’...Blackstone’s analysis, presented as uncontroverted and familiar to Wilson’s listeners in Congress, begins with the “right of personal security”—“a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health ....” And Blackstone’s unfolding of this right of persons opens immediately after Wilson’s quotation with two paragraphs about the rights of the unborn:</blockquote>
<blockquote>1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb....Then comes Blackstone’s second paragraph on unborn children’s rights: An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes.</blockquote>
<blockquote>State high courts in the years before 1868 declared that the unborn human being throughout pregnancy “is a person” and hence, under “civil and common law,” “to all intents and purposes a child, as much as if born.”  Hall v. Hancock, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 255, 257-58 (1834). ...which cited many English cases.</blockquote>
<blockquote>The unborn is “a child, as much as if born” and “is a person in rerum naturâ.” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (“In the nature of things; in the realm of actuality; in existence.”). [That is, “in fact”.])</blockquote>
<blockquote>Among the legally informed public of the time, the meaning of “any person”—in a provision constitutionalizing the equal basic rights of persons—plainly encompassed unborn human beings.</blockquote>

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Blackstone’s definition is also relevant to the understanding 1868 Americans had of  “persons”, because they were “a legally educated public brought up on the [Blackstone] Commentaries”, in the words of the Amicus Brief filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' by  <u>Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George</u>.    (www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185196/20210729093557582_ 210169a%20Amicus%20Brief%20for%20efiling%207%2029%2021.pdf)</ref>

Therefore the Amendment’s “equal protection” of all “persons” means of all humans, including those unborn. The fact that the persons meant in the first clause are born does not limit  second and third clause protection only to those born.
<ref>More about '''“The fact that the persons meant in the first clause are born does not limit  second and third clause protection only to those born.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;An elementary grammar error is a major excuse for the slaughter of 70 million souls, as pointed out by an amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by <u>Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children</u>. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185109/20210728 121621904_19-1392 Brief Amicus Curiae.pdf)

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is time to extend to unborn children the equal protection and due process rights they enjoyed in Mississippi until the Roe Court made an '''elementary grammar error, using a phrase that conferred citizenship in one clause to define personhood for other clauses.''' It is time to correct the '''Roe Court’s error in refusing to determine when life began and in the same stroke of the pen stripping the unborn of their personhood, citing the very amendment that codified the right of all persons, born and unborn, to equal protection and due process.''' 

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE ROE COURT MISINTERPRETED THE MEANING OF THE WORD “PERSON” AS FOUND IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the following three references to persons: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1.] “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[2.] “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[3.] “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(The full text of Amendment 14, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Here, in looking at statutory construction cannons such as noscitur a sociis, which means, “it is known by its companions,” the meaning of the word “persons” can only be ascertained by its associates. In the first instance, “persons” is being modified by “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Here, “persons” is a general term that is being limited at least by two conditions, either “born” or “naturalized.” In this instance, the Fourteenth Amendment limits the type of persons who can be citizens to those either born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In the second instance, no “person” shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, where “person” is used generally, unmodified by “born” or “naturalized, etc.” Here “citizens” as defined in the first instance is separate and distinct from “person” found in the second part of the sentence. The second use of “person” is unmodified. These persons are not necessarily citizens, nor does it follow that they must necessarily be “born.” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In the third instance, “any person” is also unmodified by either “born” or “naturalized, etc.” In other words, “person” is not limited to a person “born” or “naturalized in the United States,” rather, the term “person” is again unmodified and used in the general sense. Thus, where the second use of the term “person” prohibits a State from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, “person” is used generally rather than in the context of being “born.” Additionally, where the third use of the term “person” does not allow a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, again, “person” is unmodified. This does not limit protection to “persons born or naturalized in the United States…” 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"To assert that one word, such as “born,” that is used in a single line to limit a general term, such as “person,” in one provision also limits that same general term, in this case “person,” each time it occurs 5 is linguistically incorrect. It is the same as saying that because one line refers to a black cat, all other times the word cat appears it can only refer to cats that are black. This is not the way language works. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"There is no evidence that the original meaning of person was limited to those who were born. Rather, the corpus evidence found in COHA, the Hansard Corpus, and the Corpus of U.S. Supreme Opinions point to the unborn as persons, legally able to inherit property and in need of protection. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The Roe court did not resolve the question of when life begins, “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.”4 However, the Roe Court maintained that “… the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”5 The Roe Court used faulty linguistics in determining that someone unborn was not a ‘person’ as used in second and third parts of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the first use of person, ‘born’ modifies or limits the meaning of ‘person,’ not the other way around. The Roe Court did not use proper linguistic interpretation of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment when limiting its interpretation of the second and third references to persons as those who were born. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The second reference to person in the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that a State may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law applies to persons both born and unborn. The third reference to person in the Fourteenth Amendment, where a State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws also applies to persons both born and unborn. Simple linguistics, applied to these provisions in the U.S. Constitution, where the word person is unmodified by the word “born” confirms that a person is a person no matter how small." </ref>

Dobbs cites the belief that “a human person comes into being at conception” without distinguishing between the two words.
<ref>More about '''“Dobbs cites the belief that ‘a human person comes into being at conception’ without distinguishing between the two words.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unfortunately many prolifers have thought Roe created a distinction which ''Roe'' did not. The myth that proof that babies are humans falls short of proving they are “persons” made prolifers fail to appreciate how overwhelming the consensus is of court-recognized finders of facts, that all unborn babies “at all stages of gestation” have 14th Amendment protection. The false impression that that isn’t enough evidence yet to topple legal abortion kept many prolifers from supporting legislation that would have challenged legal abortion with the overwhelming evidence we already have, until we could pass more “personhood laws” and add “babies are persons” to the U.S. Constitution. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The assumption that Roe ruled that not all humans count as “persons” protected by the 14th Amendment led prolifers to think the consensus of fact finders that babies are humans didn’t count as evidence that would trigger ''Roe’s'' “collapse” clause. But the quibble of Roe was not whether babies are “persons” or merely “humans”, but whether very young babies depicted in Dorland’s fraudulent Illustrated Medical Dictionary as indistinguishable from pig fetuses are “recognizably human”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To see those illustrations, and where they are cited in Roe, and to read some of the controversy about their fraudulent origins that was discovered when they were first published a century ago, see Appendix I of the book cited in Footnote #5.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Perhaps this misunderstanding is less needed now that Dobbs has “repealed” Roe, which has supposedly separated “persons” and “humans”. Unfortunately not every lie pioneered by Roe has been executed and buried. So leaving this unclarified will probably provide one more temptation for judges to gaslight voters.</ref>

Roe v. Wade equated the time an unborn child becomes “recognizably human” with the time the child becomes a “person”: “These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” 410 U.S. 113, 133(1973)

See also ''Wong Wing v. United States'', 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic...This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.” ''Steinberg v. Brown'' 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”.
<ref>More about '''“[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Even prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court acknowledged that the word ‘person’ in law was a term designed to include all of humanity. In ''United States v. Palmer'', 16 U.S. 610 (1818), Chief Justice Marshall explained that ‘every human being’ and ‘the whole human race’ was included in the words ‘person or persons’ in federal law. Id. at 631–32. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“And in ''Levy v. Louisiana'', 391 U.S. 68 (1968), this Court articulated a simple test for ensuring equal protection for marginalized persons, reasoning that so-called ‘illegitimate’ children were not ‘non-persons’ as they were ‘humans, live, and have their being,’ and therefore, ‘clearly “persons” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’”.  (From the amicus brief of  <u>Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide</u> filed in ''Dobbs v. Jackson.'' www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185155/20210728 163153060_Amici Brief of CMP-Daleiden.pdf)</ref>
      
The word “persons” in the 14th Amendment means all who are IN FACT humans. Had it been only for those who are legally recognized as human, every deprivation of fundamental rights would be “constitutional” so long as a law or ruling questions whether its victims are “persons in the whole sense”. 

14th Amendment protection is not limited to those whose protection is “deeply rooted in America’s law and traditions”, as courts allege. If it were, the Amendment would not have ended slavery, which was the reason it was created, because freedom for slaves has zero historical support.
<ref>More about '''“If it were, slavery would still be legal because freedom for slaves has zero historical support”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Slavery had existed in every country from the beginning of recorded history. Nor had the Constitution supported the end of slavery. The 14th Amendment did not require the end of slavery; rather, slavery required the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment only repeats what God already said, in slightly different words. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Exodus 12:49  One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. See also Lev_24:22; Num_9:14, Num_15:15-16, Num_15:29
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The fact that the end of slavery did not require prior centuries free of slavery proves that the end of darkness does not require that it be already ended but only that a Light be held high, and the fact that abortion is far more deadly than slavery proves babies, as much if not more than blacks, were the intended beneficiaries of the healing Light of the 14th Amendment and the Scriptures it summarizes. That Light from Heaven made irrelevant the length of time darkness hung over America. Murder could not continue no matter how many centuries it had reigned.</ref>

Nor does it matter if the Amendment authors even wanted to protect all humans. 

In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as developed by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.  

“To say that the test of equal protection should be the ‘legal’ rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue. For the Equal Protection Clause necessarily limits the authority of a State [or its judges] to draw such ‘legal’ lines as it chooses.” Glona, 391 U.S. 73, 75 (1968)
<ref>More about “To say that the test of equal protection should be the ‘legal’ rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The “equal protection” clause was created to give equal rights to the people least valued by society, beginning with slaves, but not ending with slaves. 
Professor Nathan Schluetter said President Lincoln warned in “his First Inaugural Address against deferring decisions of policy ‘upon vital questions affecting the whole people’ to the Supreme Court, and thus resigning the power of self-government. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“Of course, Lincoln was referring to the ignominious Dred Scott  decision in which the Court ruled not only that blacks were ineligible for national citizenship and thus had no legal access to federal courts, but also that slaves constituted property protected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause against congressional prohibition of slavery in the territories. It was in part in order to overturn this ruling that Lincoln pressed for, Congress passed, and the nation ratified the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution extending due process and '''equal protection rights to all persons under United States jurisdiction.'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“The simple syllogism for my argument can be stated as follows. The word ‘person’ in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment includes all human beings. Unborn children are human beings.”
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unfortunately even many prolife lawyers accept Roe’s Principle from Hell that fundamental rights are only those “deeply rooted in America’s laws and traditions”, so that because the unborn had never been treated by law as fully human, so we should not treat them as fully human today. By that absurd logic, slaves should never have been freed, since slaves had never been treated by southern law as fully human. </ref>        

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />


----
<span style="color:#0b0">Genesis 3:17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: '''cursed is the ground for THY sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;''' 18  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Notice that Adam was not cursed. Nor are we cursed today through Adam’s sin. The ground was cursed, for Adam’s benefit. And for ours.
	
A life without activity is not life. Adam wouldn’t work as God directed, so God created hunger to force Adam to at least do some hard work. 
	
Activity is the essence of what the word “life” means. Inactive, inert, dead, mean nearly the same. Jesus came that we might have “life more abundantly”. That means not mere “work”, but hard work, is a key to life full of meaning. Which is why difficulties, obstacles, force adventure back into lives grown too routine, stretching our capacity. 
----

=====Finding #9.SCOTUS never denied that state personhood laws are strong evidence in an abortion case.=====

SCOTUS never said Personhood Laws are Impotent.  SCOTUS only said a personhood law by itself, without penalties, can’t generate a case. 

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 U.S. 490 (1989) did not say Missouri's personhood law had no power to topple Roe, but only “...until... courts have applied the [personhood] preamble to restrict appellees’ [abortionists] activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning.” - Webster, p. 491. (First paragraph)
<ref>More about '''“It is inappropriate for federal courts to address [the] meaning (of a law that says ‘babies are people, but we won’t stop their murderers’).”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15 pages later the principle was repeated: 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;“It will be time enough for federal courts to address the meaning of the [Personhood statement] should it be applied to restrict the activites of [the abortionists] in some concrete way.” Id at 506.</ref>

Similarly, Dobbs v. Jackson did not address whether Mississippi’s clear “personhood” declarations called for outlawing abortion in every state, because those declarations were not applied to any challenge to murdering those persons before 20 weeks, and in oral arguments, Missouri’s AG explicitly denied he was asking SCOTUS to outlaw abortion. The issue of whether babies are people who should never be murdered, at any age, was not before the court. 
<ref>More about '''“Mississippi’s AG explicitly denied he was asking SCOTUS to outlaw abortion.”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.” </ref>

Webster explained the principle: “It will be time enough for federal courts to address the meaning of the [Personhood statement] should it be applied to restrict the activites of [the abortionists] in some concrete way.” Id at 506.

Far from treating a single state personhood law as impotent, SCOTUS said that were it coupled with a clear penalty, that “will be time enough to reexamine Roe, and to do so carefully”. Concurrence by O'Conner, Id. at 526. How much more the uncontradicted findings of 38 states are enough support for any abortion restriction.

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0b0">Ecclesiastes 2:22  For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun? 23  For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity. 24  '''There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. '''

Hard work, the purpose of Life?! The “curse” of the ground for Adam’s sake (benefit) was for the purpose of directing him to the very purpose of life? To satisfy physical needs, and the needs of his soul? 

Verse 22 asks the question, what is the purpose of life? “Vexation (of his heart)” is a question about what sustains our souls. The word is translated desire, longing, weight of care. It comes from a word about grazing. Verse 23 says, what is the purpose that shines through the world’s darkness? 

“Vanity” is a dark translation of the word הֲבֵל literally meaning “breath”. Which is a translation of πνεῦμα in the New Testament, along with “wind” and “spirit”. “All is vanity”, Ecclesiastes 1:2, (KJV version) sounds depressing, but “all is breath” presumes a Breather, God: the substance of the universe is “breath/spirit”. See Colossians 1:17  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.</span>

----

=====Finding #10. “Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions=====

Evidence of Life is not disproved by an “exception...for the purpose of saving the life of the mother” and/or by not charging the mother with being a “principal or an accomplice” to murder, as Roe’s footnote 54 is generally interpreted, and as many prolifers still believe.
<ref>More about '''“ ‘Exceptions’ do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions.”'''  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Although Roe is officially “overruled” by Dobbs v. Jackson, not every lie in it has been dislodged from prolife legal thinking, and there are still prolife lawmakers who are afraid to support any bill that fails to save every baby, believing that will be taken by baby killers as evidence that prolifers don’t really believe babies are fully human. This Finding is for them.  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Another example of a Roe myth that still lives is the idea that babies aren’t real people because centuries ago, the penalty for murdering your baby was only serious after “quickening” (when mom can feel baby kicking). It’s not a myth exclusive to Roe. It is part of the doctrine of “Substantive Due Process”, an intimidating phrase used to empower courts to invent “rights” like the right to murder your baby, if the right is “well rooted in history”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All that is explained and criticized elsewhere in this document. But as to whether it was even true that babies were historically not so human before quickening, <u>Foundation for Moral Law</u>, in their Amicus in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'', explains:

<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Quickening is different from viability; quickening is the time when the mother first feels the child move within her. One could be convicted of homicide for the killing of an unborn child, only if quickening had already taken place. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But this common law rule did not mean that the child became a person only at quickening or that there was a right to abortion before quickening. Rather, it was a procedural matter of proof. '''One can be guilty of homicide only if the homicide victim was alive at the time of the alleged killing, and at that stage in the development of the common law, medical science had no way of proving the child was alive until the mother had felt the child move within her.''' (<u>Foundation for Moral Law, Lutherans for Life</u>, https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/JTZoYWv3fly6h Femb8mU/media/63b73813b7386028645df690.pdf)</ref> 

Although the ideal of law is equal protection of all humans, human law is as imperfect as humans. The very legal, political, and Biblical necessity of “innocent until proved guilty” illustrates the inability of human courts to equally protect every human, without that inability proving crime victims are not fully human!    
    
Practical reasons to prosecute abortionists but not moms are (1) to get moms to testify against abortionists, and (2) the greater ease for juries of imputing culpability to adult doctors than to mothers suffering varying degrees of youth, deception (by culture, schools, pastors, and judges) and pressure (by family and fathers). Legal and moral reasons for a “life of the mother” exception are that (1) while babies have a fundamental right to live, so do mothers; and (2) while we are inspired by people who give their lives for others, we can’t require them to by law. Even our Good Samaritan laws, requiring people at accident scenes to help, are sparse and inconsistent.

It would be hypocritical to charge aborting moms with being accessories to murder, without first charging judges. The degree to which laws fail to give “equal protection” to all humans is no evidence of the degree to which people are not humans. Such a legal theory is absurd, unknown outside Footnote 54,
<ref>More about '''“Such a legal theory is...unknown outside Footnote 54”'''
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unless you count the “Substantive Due Process” nonsense that courts should call mass murder of a particular class of people a “constitutional right” if it is “deeply rooted in American tradition”. Which implies dehumanization of the class of people so targeted. Yet not even that foolish analysis goes quite so far as to claim to prove said class is not human. <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Although lower courts have ruled that the legality of mass murder makes the humanity of those murdered constitutionally irrelevant.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Are you following this reasoning? It took me years to wind my way through it this far.</ref> 
cannot be taken seriously, and certainly merits no attention as it faults laws for being no better than is humanly possible. 

----
'''FOOTNOTES'''
----

<references />
----
<span style="color:#0b0">Luke 12:22  ...'''Take no thought for your life,''' what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. 23  The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. 24  Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and '''God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?''' 25  And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? [Or, one hour to your life span?] 26  If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? 27  '''Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28  If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?''' 29  And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. 30  For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and '''your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. 31  But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. 32  Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.''' 33  Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, '''a treasure in the heavens that faileth not,''' where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. 34  '''For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. '''

The ground was cursed for the benefit of Adam. The ground was changed in a way that forced him to work very hard or not eat. 

There was work before: to take care of the Garden of Eden, Genesis 2:15. But Adam and Eve liked Satan's idea of taking a shortcut. "You don't need God telling you what to do. Be your own god, deciding for yourself what to do." 

But shortcuts around Full Life lead straight to empty life.  Shortcuts around Paradise lead straight to Hell. For those who will not use their leisure to meditate on God's instructions which are only for our benefit, not His,  Job 35:1-8, leisure is a curse. Inactivity is a curse, Proverbs 19:15. Physical comfort is a curse, Luke 12:19, Amos 6:1, Psalm 25;12-13. That's what makes it especially hard for rich people, who can afford more leisure, to enter the Kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25. 

So to save Adam and Eve from the pure Hell of an aimless, jpointless, empty existence, God treats men like the animals they love to emulate: God makes a few bites of food a "reward" for doing some little task, the way we give a dog a biscuit for doing a trick. But God offers more than an animal existence for any who want it.  

Sin has very real consequences. Every sin of which you are guilty has shut off opportunities, many of which can never be recovered. 

But to the extent you follow God now, He offers new, different opportunities. Your life can still be full. And God will still take care of you. 

See what Luke 12 promises, which is also written in Matthew 6. For those willing to obey the rules designed for their benefit, they no longer have to toil, sweat-covered, too busy to get in very much trouble, to eat. 

Think what that means! For us who believe and obey, the "ground" is no longer "cursed"! The "curse" Adam brought into the world does not touch us! It is only our own sin which drives us outside Paradise, not Adam's. To the extent we "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven", "all these other things" which God knows we needs "will be added  unto you"!

This doesn't mean there is no work to do. In fact, a little hard work can prove a welcome break from intense prayer and concentrating on solutions for others. But it does mean we can make serving others with Love and Truth our first priority even when that leaves us wondering how we will eat, and our meals will come to us. Our health, our days on earth, our finances, all will be sufficient to enable us to do God's Will, which again is for our own fulfillment, not God's. 

The faithfulness of this promise is proved by many testimonies of missionaries and others, and in my life. </span>

----

====Part 4: Conclusions====


----
<span style="color:#0b0">Ezekiel 3:17  Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18  '''When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. '''19  Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20  Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 21  Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

The warnings of these Findings of Facts are addressed to judges, but meant for everyone. They are for the purpose of saving the bodies of babies, and  the souls of adults.

Prolifers, do your appeals to lawmakers, courts, and the public, to turn them away from infanticide, include evidence at least as compelling as what you  read here? The following warning from God tells us to use the most compelling messaging we can, because if we self-censor to be more “polite”, “respectable”, or “politically correct”, we cannot be as persuasive, which may make the difference between whether ''they'' continue their infanticide, for which God will hold ''us'' accountable.
----

=====Finding #11. The 14th Amendment Requires This State, as every state, to Thoroughly Outlaw Abortion.  Restrictions of abortions to save mothers cannot be reviewed by strict scrutiny, even though the safety of mothers is a fundamental right, because the safety of babies is an equally fundamental right. Legislatures can best delineate the most life-saving balance of harms.=====

[Restrictions can't be reviewed by Strict Scrutiny because the safety of babies is an equally fundamental right:
<ref>Footnote: The North Dakota Supreme Court on March 16, 2023 shot down a “trigger law” (passed in 2007, whose outlawing of abortion was set to be “triggered” by SCOTUS repeal of Roe) because doctors worried that they could not save mothers by killing their babies without uncertain consequences in court. Legislatures always have a moral responsibility to minimize legal uncertainties, (with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”, Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But courts also have a moral responsibility to not add to any unavoidable uncertainties.  (Laws should not be applied or interpreted in a way that produces  an “absurd result” when a rational alternative is possible. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission,  306 U.S. 493 (1939)  
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The North Dakota court confused matters by reviewing the law by Strict Scrutiny, (a restriction of a fundamental right must be the least restriction possible to achieve a compelling government interest), by calling the safety of mothers a fundamental right while ignoring the fundamental right of babies to life. See the North Dakota ruling at [https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/North-Dakota-Supreme-Court-Order-PI.pdf North Dakota Supreme Court Order]/
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In Iowa, an amicus brief of “Non-Iowa Abortion Care Providers” submitted in the review of an injunction against Iowa’s 2018 Heartbeat Law made the same argument, and added testimonies of doctors  in neighboring states with similarly allegedly vague “life of the mother” exceptions. They moaned about leaving their patients suffering developing emergencies to go out into the hall to consult lawyers by phone to see if they could save their patients without going to jail. Because these testimonies were submitted in an amicas rather than a trial court, they could not be cross examined to establish whether their cases were true “life of the mother” situations, not to mention to verify that their medical credentials qualify them to provide better emergency care than just abortion, and that their medical records are without scandal and fraud. See the brief at [http://iowacourts.gov/courtcases/18325/briefs/5800/embedBrief Brief of non-Iowa Abortion Provider]. Will that brief become the reason for killing Iowa’s heartbeat law? We will know when the Court rules in June. This is written in mid-April.)</ref>]
 
The indecision of judges over whether babies of humans are humans, or their failure to grasp their humanity, does not neutralize the consensus of court recognized fact finders who have taken a position that babies are fully human – a  vote to “abstain” does not cancel a “yes” vote. Therefore the consensus of Fact Finders who have taken a position is unanimous and uncontradicted, that babies are fully human “persons”. That makes abortion legally recognizable as killing innocent human beings, which makes a single abortion legally recognizable as murder and mass abortions legally recognizable as genocide/infanticide, which was never constitutionally protected nor legal, but is what even Roe correctly said must require abortion’s legality to end. 

No judge can squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal because to the extent judges support what everyone now knows are the worst crimes, there remains no reason for judges. This state faces greater constitutional liability from delaying compliance with the 14th Amendment by thoroughly outlawing abortion, than it faces by taking corrective constitutional action in advance of indecisive courts.

This state must, as must every state, comprehensively outlaw abortion, because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other.
<ref>Dobbs went to a lot of trouble to show that the right to murder your own baby is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” so therefore the Constitution doesn't protect it. Indeed it does not, but not for that reason. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 14th Amendment demonstrated the irrelevance of “deeply rooted in history” by its creation for the purpose of ending slavery, an institution more “deeply rooted in” the ''whole world’s'' “history” than any other. The reason conservatives like precedents from America’s first century is because they were closer to the Bible. Indeed, that is a good reason – and the  only reason slavery ended. But the Bible is a safer subject of our admiration than the history of humans however closer to the Bible. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is mind boggling that Dobbs never once mentioned ''the right of a baby to live'' “in this Nation’s history”. The right of babies to live was certainly “deeply rooted in history”, but again, that’s not why the 14th Amendment protects it. The 14th Amendment protects the right of babies to live because the 14th Amendment doesn’t let any state legalize the tyranny of any class of humans over any other. The 14th Amendment put a “full stop” to the idea that a long history of tyranny is the reason to let tyranny continue till Jesus comes.  </ref>
It made irrelevant whether their destroyers “rely” on destroying them.
<ref>Casey (1992) came up with a new excuse for infanticide: moms had come to “rely” on it. They had “reliance interests”. But slave owners had come to “rely” on slavery too, and the 14th Amendment had no mercy for ''them''.  </ref>
The only possible way to keep baby murder legal would be to repeal the 14th Amendment, returning to states the power of majorities to tyrannize minorities. Of course, that would make slavery legal again. 

The prohibition of tyranny over any class of humans  by any other has even greater authority than that of the Constitution: it is also the command of all true religion.
<ref>The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says Congress can’t “establish”, religion, which originally meant  forcing people to attend and give to a particular church denomination. It didn’t stop states from “establishing” their own Christian denomination, and in fact most states did, when the 1st Amendment was passed. But since then, most if not all states have adopted the same prohibition into their own constitutions. And even if they hadn’t, the 14th Amendment gives federal courts jurisdiction over states to protect the “Freedom of Religion” of all citizens. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Quoting Scripture in a bill will surely be accused of violating these principles. But it invokes “True Religion”. What worshiper of a non-Biblical religion will go to court and say their religion is discriminated against because only “true” religions are endorsed? Remember that courts even classify atheism as a “religion”. ([https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1318/atheism 1st Amendment & Atheism]) 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And what worshiper even of a religion which supports tyranny of one people group over another, such as the Hindu “caste system” or Islam’s jihad against “disbelievers”, will go in an American court and demand that legislatures equally endorse religious teachings which are in reality incitement to what our laws identify as crime?  (Compare Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990) with Deuteronomy 13:1-5 which penalizes not just believing but “serving” other gods. We can believe cruel hogwash, but believing crime is religious doesn’t exempt us from its penalties.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Notice that the Bible cites in this Finding are called “examples”. This deliberately implies that the writings of other religions probably contain similar principles. I don’t know if they do, but this implication mitigates any exclusive “establishment” of Bible-based faiths. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So why suffer all this drama? What makes this acknowledgment of the Bible as endorsing the 14th Amendment worth the negative attention we may expect?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First, because it is absolutely true. The Bible, and the 14th Amendment, equally condemn what the Bible calls “respect of persons” which is what courts call “discrimination”. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also first, because acknowledging God Who decides success now and eternity later is a smart policy.  Every threat to our nation is caused by forgetting God, and when we remember God, censoring God – and is healed by returning to God.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Second, because 71% of American citizens believe the Bible is the Word of God; 55% believe it is without error. ([https://sotb.research.bible/ Bible Research]) Showing its support for what we are doing will increase their confidence that it is the right thing to do. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Third, because churches generally regard “politics” as so spiritually unimportant that action information should not even be available on church premises except occasional mentions by occasional pastors. This attitude is encouraged by Christian political activists who prohibit public acknowledgment of the Scriptures that are often the real reason for their positions. God is thereby censored, in those forums where voters decide whether to pattern our laws after the principles of Heaven or of Hell, by both churches and Christian political activists. “If my people who are called by My Name, will...turn from their wicked ways....” 2 Chronicles 7:14.</ref>
For example, Exodus 12:49, Romans 10:12, Colossians 3:11.

<references />

----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#11 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=====Finding #12. Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable. =====

Any judge or court which attempts to block this state's effort to bring its laws into conformity with the 14th Amendment violates Dobbs v. Jackson, interferes with this state’s compliance with the Constitution, and is an accessory to genocide according to the uncontradicted consensus of court-recognized fact finders. 

Any state judge interfering with this state’s obligation to obey the 14th Amendment obligation to protect its unborn citizens from abortion is guilty of exercising the legislative function, in order to perpetuate genocide through an unconstitutional ruling, which exceeds the judicial powers given by the state Constitution, which is Malfeasance in Office, a ground of impeachment.
<ref>Legislatures have considerable untapped potential for restraining their activist courts when they become confused about which branch of government they are. 
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, any legislature is well within its constitutional authority to prohibit any district court from invalidating a law – only a supermajority of the Supreme Court should be allowed to do it, and only within 90 days. After they do, the legislature should be able, within the next year, to compel the attendance of judges under their jurisdiction to discuss and debate, with specified legislators in a public hearing, the constitutional justification for [or necessity of] that judicial exercise of the legislative function. A supermajority of the legislature might then overturn the ruling, and the final verdict will be made by very well informed voters at the next election. To see these ideas actually drafted into a bill, see [[Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating]]  </ref>

Should any federal judge so interfere, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action.
<ref>For example, see   at [http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~schnably/GringrichContractWithAmerica.pdf “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution”].  (sic) </ref>  

<references />


----
<span style="color:#0f0"><u>#12 DISCUSSION</u> Register (see [[Begin!]]) and join the discussion here. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Template#Vote Vote], volunteer, correct, improve, propose, explain, criticize, and/or send money. See beginning for more ideas.</span>

----

=More Stuff=

==Why court-recognized fact finders Persuade Voters while Binding Judges==

===Juries.===

The reason juries can “establish” these truths with the kind of authority that is acceptable to whole societies is that unlike public opinion surveys or petitions, which are normally not admissible evidence of facts in court, we test jurors for impartiality and educate them with the most qualified expert witnesses we can find. And the education of jurors does not end with a 500 word article. It continues until both sides run out of evidence. Which can take all day, all week, or even all year. Juries contribute impartiality, and commitment to study as long as necessary, to our search for Truth.

Unfortunately when states defend their abortion restrictions in court, they have not, so far, cited the consensus of juries in those few early abortion prevention trials in which judges allowed juries to hear the Necessity Defense (the defendants’ action was necessary in order to save lives ) and juries acquitted because the defendants were saving  lives. This is a powerful resource which prolifers need to use. In both kinds of courts - of  Law, and of Public Opinion.

===Expert witnesses.===

The reason expert witnesses testifying in court records are more persuasive to whole societies than experts outside court is that in court, (1) the very top experts that the litigants can afford are called, and (2) those experts are scrutinized by the top experts called by the opposing side. 
That is a standard that news reporters make a show of meeting, but reporters will (1) talk to a source for an hour and select maybe two sentences for a quote, (2) take the quote as far out of context as necessary to suit the prejudices of the reporter, (3) get the quote wrong, (4) make no public record available of all that was said so readers can double check the accuracy of the report, and (5) cram all that into 300-1,000 words. 

Judges at least write a summary of the proceedings, reporting the positions of both sides, in more detail than news reports. Roe was 65 pages. And anyone can get a transcript of the proceedings, and copies of the legal briefs filed, if they are rich enough. At least records exist. 

The value of expert witnesses in abortion prevention trials, who testified that fully human life begins from the first minute, is that they were never, or at least virtually never refuted. Which is breathtaking considering that Planned Barrenhood invests billions in legally attacking prolifers, demonstrating their extremely high motivation to refute prolifers in court to the extent possible!
Yet the closest they came to refuting the expert witnesses against them was to say that babies of humans may be fully human, making killing them legally recognizable as murder, but Roe made that “irrelevant”. 

In normal trials, if a litigant argues that the opposing evidence is irrelevant, he will also bring in contrary evidence to show the opposing evidence is also wrong, in case the judge doesn’t agree that it is irrelevant. But in abortion trials, that apparently never happened. No witness, in thousands of trials, was ever brought forward to testify that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. The fact was dismissed as irrelevant, but '''the accuracy of the fact was for all practical purposes conceded,''' being left unchallenged.

Unfortunately prolife legislatures have not cited this overwhelming evidence in court. Some litigants cite the expertise of new authorities that have not yet been tested in court, but not the tested evidence. This is a powerful resource that prolifers should use. In both kinds of courts.

===Legislatures===

Societies respect the findings of their legislatures as much as any other authority because all the lawmakers are there with the support of a majority of voters, and to remain there, they suffer the bombardment of opinions and information that would make the average citizen cry. And even once there, they are scrutinized by other lawmakers who continually look for ways to disprove them. 

Lawmakers are elected from the same populations that supply jurors, and expert witnesses are routinely clamoring to give them information for free. Lawmakers pay the salaries of judges, and have the power – seldom exercised, but they have it – to impeach judges who stray too far out of their jurisdiction into the powers assigned to legislatures. When they impeach judges, they then hold trials just like courts do; except that the senators are judges and the judges are defendants.
	
So when legislatures agree on facts, their verdict is as persuasive and acceptable to society as any human authority. 

It is therefore for good reason that these fact-finding authorities are recognized by courts and are persuasive in the Court of Public Opinion, even though not many think about these details. Still, these points should be made. 

In both kinds of courts.

===Congress.===

Congress approves Supreme Court justices. Not only does the Constitution give Congress that power, but Congress is well qualified: it contains many lawyers, many of whom qualify as constitutional scholars. At least that is what presidents have often thought, since [https://www.senate.gov/senators/Supreme_Court.htm 15 U.S. Senators] served on the U.S. Supreme Court, not counting those nominated but not approved by the Senate. 

So when Congress ruled that all unborn babies are fully human from fertilization (“members of the species homo sapiens at all stages of gestation”) its ruling on that fact carries at least as much weight as what the Supreme Court has ruled. Especially since the Supreme Court has never ruled on when babies in fact become human. 

Roe said it is when babies are “recognizably human” and/or “infused with a soul”. (“These disciplines variously approached the question [of when life begins] in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being,  that is, infused with a ‘soul’... Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 133 (1973) Although this statement reports how other “disciplines” framed “the question”, this criteria is reported without criticism, implying concurrence; especially since Roe offered no other criteria and even said “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is unable to speculate” in the absence of the consensus of expert witnesses: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus”.)

==Conflicting Prolife Goals==

Two conflicting goals have divided prolife lawmakers for half a century: (1) the goal of getting abortion outlawed comprehensively, (ie. not just surgical but chemical abortions, no exceptions for rape or incest, etc.) and (2) the goal of getting the law passed and safely through courts. 

It has seldom been thought possible to achieve both goals. The strategy here has a third goal designed to make goals #1 and #2 easy, but whose initial draft will seem to violate #1 because it leaves whole areas of baby killing unaddressed, and to violate #2 because it outlaws way more than many prolife lawyers will think possible. 

This third goal is to get judges out of the way of saving lives in about a year, so legislatures will have the green light to deliberate on all the details as comprehensively as their voters will accept, and not only that, but to educate voters ''so voters will not just accept but demand'' much more. 

In other words the purpose of this bill is NOT to comprehensively define, now,  what rights to live babies ought to have, but to push away judicial and political obstacles to legislators defining, in as soon as a year,  what rights to live babies ought to have. It is like an earth mover which must first come along and reconfigure a hill so that a cement truck can come later and lay down a road. The two functions must not be confused. The earth mover must not be barred from the work area because it will not lay down a road. 

==Obstacles to Saving Lives==

===Obstacle #1: America's Smartest Judges Can't Tell if Babies of People are People.===

Hard to believe, but read it and weep: [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Troubling_Excerpts_&_ Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson Troubling_Excerpts_&_ Analysis_from_Dobbs_v._Jackson]
 
===Obstacle #2: Lingering Lower Court Precedent that Roe made Babies nonPersons “as a matter of Law”===

Lower appellate courts in abortion prevention cases used to say that evidence that babies are in fact fully human is irrelevant – therefore inadmissible, because Roe made babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”. Roe never said such a thing, and it is absurd to imagine that a state can make murder legal simply by saying in the law that the human beings to be murdered aren’t people “as a matter of law”. But that's what courts said.

Indeed, Dobbs said “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.” But lower courts weren’t held back from making up a holding not found in any SCOTUS ruling in 1973, so they are capable of the same stunt in 2023. Especially since Dobbs is as noncommittal on the humanity of babies as was Roe. 

===Obstacle #3: ... America let them get away with it.===

Prolife legislation that made it to SCOTUS (and most of the rest) never challenged the myth that Roe made babies “nonPersons”. They didn’t make the humanity of babies an issue that courts needed to address. 

(Webster, 1979, said babies are people but also said Missouri would obey Roe, so SCOTUS said when Missouri actually restricts abortion is when SCOtUS will think about babies being people. Dobbs, 2022, said babies are people but Attorney General Stewart called it “hot” and “difficult” whether to keep protecting their murders! An issue upon which the AG said SCOTUS should remain “scrupulously neutral”! [See my analysis of December 1, 2021 oral arguments at [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Valentine_Letter_to_Supreme_Court_Justices:_outlaw_baby_killing_in_EVERY_state Outlaw Baby Killing in EVERY State]

Instead of pointing out that babies of humans are humans which makes dismembering them murder which no state can be allowed to legalize, states bowed to Casey, 1992, which said no abortion restriction can be “substantial” - nor can any part of its purpose be to reduce abortions. 

Although over 60,000 were arrested for blocking baby killing doors and their defense in court was that they were saving lives, those “lawbreakers” didn't even have majority prolife support much less full Republican support, making their defense easy to gaslight. 

To this day no state in its prolife laws or courtroom defense has pointed out that the FACT that unborn babies are fully human is dispositive, and is “established” by 38 states in their “unborn victims of violence” laws, dozens of juries in abortion prevention cases when judges allowed them to hear the Necessity Defense, tens of thousands of expert witnesses in those trials who were never countered, Congress in 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), and by every judge who has taken a position. No American court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position on "when life begins" has fixed any later time than fertilization." '''If the consensus of every American court-recognized fact finder is not enough to establish a fact enough for a judge to know it, it is impossible for any judge to ever know anything.''' 

'''It is impossible for any judge to squarely address this evidence and keep abortion legal.''' 

But no state has presented this evidence in any court. 

Judges think it is unethical to rule according to evidence submitted by neither party to a case.
No state has made these points in court. Making them in the law’s “findings” will force the ruling to quote them, which will force judges to address them. 

For example, after quoting #2 of the law proposed here, which calls unanimous lower appellant precedent “the opposite of what Roe or any other SCOTUS precedent said”, courts couldn’t just ignore that claim. They would have to deal with it. 

Public education is needed to help pressure judges to squarely address the findings. The Judicial Accountability Act  will make the pressure overwhelming. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/
Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating How Legislatures can Stop Judges from Legislating]

CAVEAT: Obviously, women do have a “fundamental right” to manage their own health, including removing foreign objects from their bodies which are not people. This strategy in no way targets cancer operations.

==Willful Blindness to Personhood Before and After Dobbs==

Of the goals stated on page 2, the following is just as important now, after Dobbs v. Jackson, as it was before, but for different reasons:

'''• The restriction must be substantial enough to rule out every lesser courtroom defense, than that it saves lives.'''

Before Dobbs, any state that wanted to focus judges’ attention to the evidence that babies are humans/people would have needed to enact a restriction of abortion that was substantial. That is because Casey, 1992, had 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 equipped with 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.

In fact, presenting evidence of life was a no-no for any state trying to satisfy Casey, since that would admit that part of the state’s purpose was to reduce abortion. 

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 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 [http://saltshaker.us/ SLIC/IowaHeartbeatArguments.pdf Iowa Heartbeat Arguments])

Post-Dobbs, it is just as important that the penalties of a prolife law are a serious, profound restriction of abortion, but for a very different reason. No longer are states ordered to keep restrictions negligible, but Casey’s  reason for keeping restrictions negligible has not been corrected. In fact, Dobbs explicitly stated the issue, and then explicitly declined to address it:

<blockquote>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</blockquote>

Notice, however, that 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]
 
This is the same judicial willful blindness to the only issue that really matters that was adopted by even the conservative justices in Casey, 1992, modeled before it by Roe v Wade, 1973. Here is Scalia, White, and Thomas’ dissent in ''Casey'', followed by a statement from Roe:

<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
<blockquote>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)</blockquote>
    
<blockquote>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!... </blockquote> 
<blockquote>“[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.</blockquote>
<blockquote>“...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.” </blockquote>

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, 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.

==An Example of a Substantial yet Simple Restriction==

The restriction must be substantial enough to rule out every lesser courtroom defense, than that it saves lives, yet it must be simple enough to be free of any distraction from ruling on the evidence that babies are people, such as a “lesser issue” over which the judge can dispose of the case and say “we therefore have no need to address when life begins”. 

This is an example of a profoundly substantial restriction of abortion yet which is so simple that it adds only five words and deletes 10. This leaves NO room for some judge to dodge the central issue on some technicality. 

“Bills” in legislatures are proposed changes to laws. Underlines indicate proposed additions. Strikeouts indicate proposed deletions. 

Iowa Code 707.7 Feticide.

1. Any person who intentionally terminates a human pregnancy <u>at any state of gestation,</u> with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, <s>after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy where death of the fetus results,</s> commits feticide. Feticide is a class “C” felony. ''[The next three paragraphs would be altered similarly.]''

==Expedited Review in federal law==

Every prolife bill ought to include: <u>Any court review of this law must be expedited, since lives are lost with each day that courts delay.</u>

The power of this addition is explained on page 3, top. This article is about the use of expedited review in law generally.

Legislatures sometimes require courts, in time-sensitive cases, to rule quickly. Usually expedited review is an option for judges, when a party to a case requests it. When a court reviews the constitutionality of a state law, the state is a party to the case. 

'''Examples: Expedited Review Grounds''' 

'''DC Circuit Federal Court:''' A party seeking expedited consideration generally "must demonstrate the delay will cause irreparable injury and that the decision under review is subject to substantial challenge"; but "[t]he Court may also expedite cases . . . in which the public generally [has] an unusual interest in prompt disposition" and the reasons are "strongly compelling." - U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 40 (1987). 

'''9th Circuit:''' The requesting party must make a showing of “good cause,” where irreparable harm might occur or an appeal might become moot. Rutter 6:149. 

'''10th Circuit:''' Appeals can be expedited under 28 U.S.C. 1657 for "good cause." 

'''Iowa''': Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.902 has special rules for children's issues (since children might not remain children through a years-long case) and lawyer disciplinary proceedings. (Babies are children.) 

'''3rd Circuit:''' Rule 4.1 says a motion for expedited appeal must set forth the exceptional reason that warrants expedition and include a proposed briefing schedule. 

'''4th Circuit:''' Rule 12(c) says “A motion to expedite should state clearly the reasons supporting expedition....” 

'''7th Circuit:''' Appeals can be expedited under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 for “good cause.” (Reasons must be given.) 

'''Expedited Appeal Law and Legal Definition''' (An explanation at uslegal..com): “The court will speed up cases involving issues of child custody, support, visitation, adoption, paternity, determination that a child is in need of services, termination of parental rights, and all other appeals entitled to priority by the appellate rules or statute.” Other grounds: “the constitutionality of any law, the public revenue, and public health, or otherwise of general public concern or for other good cause,” (Source: rcfp.org lists expedited review rules for each federal circuit court and for each state's courts.) 

==Too Lengthy?==

Unlike the “penalties” section which must remain simple and short enough that no judge can find a technicality to rule on in order to ignore the central issue, the “Findings” section must be thorough enough to refute objections to the law expected in court, which have also prevented prolifers from challenging legal abortion as the legally recognizable murder of human beings, and which have confused the public.

In other words the same arguments which need to be in the law so judges can’t overturn it, need to be in the bill so lawmakers will pass it, the public will support it, and abortion supporters will retreat.  The more information in the law, the less lawmakers will have to memorize to defend it, the harder for news reporters to portray it as indefensible, the easier for voters to find corroboration, and the more certainly lawyers defending the law will make the arguments you want. 
Baby Killers will help publicize them at every stage of their progress through legislative deadlines, because like June Bugs in summer, they are unable to see a Light without slamming themselves against it. 

Some of these Findings will seem idiotic to some people for opposite reasons. Prolife leaders and lawyers will find statements so far opposite to the conventional legal wisdom of decades as to seem legally naive. Those  who have never heard the legal assumptions to which these paragraphs respond may think them so obvious as to be stupid to even say. 

Two goals are at perpetual war with one another in any writing targeting evil: brevity, and “making the case”, which includes addressing all objections. Satan has the advantage with people who “don’t like to read” because it takes fewer words to lie than to refute a lie.