Valentine Letter to Supreme Court Justices: outlaw baby killing in EVERY state
From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Please interact! To interact with any particular point made here, simply click "edit", then right after that point, type four dashes (to create a horizontal line), hit "enter" to start on the next line typing your response, then close with four tildes which will leave your real name, time etc.; then on the last line, four more dashes.
To vote, Like, rate, argue, change your past comment, add a section with a heading that appears in the Table of Contents, start a new article, use colors, write in Greek, etc. find suggestions and codes at Begin!
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Valentine to U.S. Supreme Court Justices
- 2.1 Shouldn’t murder be against the law in every state?
- 2.2 A “philosophical” or “religious” view?
- 2.3 Balancing Interests: Moms v. Babies – NOT hard
- 2.4 The Court can too outlaw abortion in all states, said Roe
- 2.5 This isn’t difficult
- 2.6 An issue for fact finders, not fringe philosophers
- 2.7 SCOTUS never said “when [protectable] life [in fact] begins” is irrelevant
- 2.8 Consciousness
- 2.9 Being “scrupulously neutral” about murder is not a virtue
- 2.10 Failure of laws to equally protect some does not make them less human
- 2.11 But Roe did say babies aren’t people as a matter of law
- 2.12 Our “unalienable rights” are not subject to our “value” to others!
- 2.13 What has changed in 50 years?
- 2.14 Who shall we make it easy for: babies, or judges and lawyers?
- 2.15 The indirect influence of the Bible in court-recognized fact-finding, which is not neutralized by other religions
- 2.16 The Bible Uniquely Supports Equal Rights
- 2.17 P.S.
The following introduction was emailed to Iowa Republican lawmakers on Valentine's Day, 2022:
Did you know that even though the U.S. Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade in April,
- outlawing of abortions in prolife states would reduce abortions by only 1/3; the Democrat states likely to keep infanticide legal account for 2/3 of abortions.
- no one is asking the Court to outlaw abortions in every states on the ground that abortion is murder of fully human babies; during oral arguments December 1, the humanity of the unborn was treated as a “philosophical” or “religious” opinion which should be left for states to deal with according to the prolife attorney general and the conservative justices. (Dobbs v. Jackson, No. 19-1392, December 1, 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/ argument_transcripts/2021/19-1392_4425.pdf)
- Justice Kavanaugh specifically wanted to be sure the prolife attorney from Mississippi was not suggesting the Court had any power to outlaw abortion in all states. Which makes sense as long as you profess inability to know whether babies are in fact human. But which makes zero sense considering that Gonzales (the partial birth ruling) treated the unborn as human, none of the justices December 1 quite denied that unborn babies are in fact human, every court-recognized finder of fact since 1973 has said unborn babies are human, no American legal authority has designated any later time than conception that human “life begins”, killing humans is normally prosecuted as murder, and the 14th Amendment gives courts jurisdiction to stop any state from protecting murderers.
- The Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling that abortion is a “fundamental right” in Iowa is going to be pretty hard to sustain after the U.S. Supreme Court makes it an issue for “the people” through state legislatures. That should leave unclear the necessity of waiting for enactment of your Constitutional Amendment before taking additional prolife action. Especially since the Court is likely to rule in April that Iowa can outlaw abortion, surely it makes sense to get a law ready this year.
- The Iowa Supreme Court ruling did not address evidence that babies of humans are humans, making their abortions legally recognizable as murder. The attached bill, with explanations, will place evidence of “personhood” before the court in a way that no judge can squarely address, and keep abortion legal.
- This may be your last chance to bring a case that will end abortion not just in Iowa but in every state. After Roe is repealed, and assuming the Iowa courts stand down, Iowa’s ending of legal abortion will not go to court, which will leave Iowa without a way to bring a case that will affect other states, at least that I can think of. To invoke the Supreme Court’s authority to stop violations of fundamental rights in all states, there has to be a court case.
Over the past three years that I have presented this opportunity to Iowa republican lawmakers, (after 8 years of offering a less detailed approach), I have been encouraged by those experts who have told me it has real merit, but discouraged that no one has acted to introduce this opportunity.
Lack of confidence in your ability to verify that such a dramatic answer to your prayers could be real? You want to first see a movement of voters to assure you this opportunity can be understood and supported by the general public? Just too busy with bills that may not be nearly as important but they require a lot less study and prayer?
Whatever the reasons, I’m throwing another “Hail Mary” – a letter to the conservative Supreme Court justices, challenging them to outlaw baby murder in every state. “If Roe is merely repealed, leaving Democrat states free to continue infanticide, how is that different than Dred Scott v. Sandford which left Democrat states free to continue slavery? Just as Scott should have ended slavery, SCOTUS should now end legal abortion. Slaves at least got to be born!”
That’s just one paragraph out of my 12 page letter. Should anyone care to see the rest, I hope to post it tonight at www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us, → Forum, → Life, → Valentine Letter to Supreme Court Justices: outlaw baby killing in EVERY state
Valentine to U.S. Supreme Court Justices
The following letter/article was "snail mailed" to the five conservative justices on February 14, 2022:
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C., 20543
RE: the questions asked by conservative justices in oral arguments, Dobbs v. Jackson, No. 19-1392, December 1, 2021
Honorable Justice ______
Shouldn’t murder be against the law in every state?
Why did no one ask, December 1, “Since no one said Mr. Stewart’s facts are wrong, that Roe and Casey have led “to the termination of now millions of human lives”,(1) and since terminating a human life is supposed to be prosecuted as murder, why are we still talking about letting states choose whether to keep murder legal? Shouldn’t murder be against the law in every state?”
(Footnote 1: Mississippi Attorney General Scott G. Stewart also said, without anyone saying those weren’t the facts, that 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 added, “the fetus has an interest in having a life”.)
Not only did no one deny that babies are “undeniably human” as Mr. Thomas put it, but in the past 50 years, every court-recognized Fact Finder that has taken a position has ruled that “life begins” at every stage of gestation, while no American legal authority has designated any later time that “life begins”, Including Justice Sotomayer and Ms. Rickelman December 1.
But is that merely...
A “philosophical” or “religious” view?
Justice Sotomayor [a liberal justice] minimized human life by telling [the prolife lawyer, Mississippi Attorney General] Stewart that whether the millions of slain unborn babies are “human” is a “philosophical” or “religious” question:
“How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It's still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that's a religious view, isn't it….when do you suggest we begin [protecting] that life?”
Someone should have asked her how old a murder victim has to be before she would graduate his murder from a discussion topic for philosophers to a docket item for prosecutors? Birth isn’t old enough according to some philosophers. Defining “murder” by philosophy instead of by law gives murderers indefinite latitude.
Unfortunately Casey likewise called baby murder a “philosophical” question.(2) At least Casey also said the issue is “more than a philosophical question”,(3) but then minimized human life by saying it is merely the opinion of “some”, that “[abortion is] an act of violence against innocent human life”, without inquiring whether that “opinion” is a fact.
Footnote 2: Casey, 1992: “Men and women of good conscience can disagree...about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy...but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter….
Footnote 3: “it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is...an act fraught with consequences for others: ….procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. “
Roe did NOT say the “differences” were “philosophical”, or that the facts were unknowable/unresolvable, but the opposite: that when unborn “personhood” is “established”, meaning as a fact, implied: by finders of facts, then “of course” the 14th Amendment requires outlawing all abortions in every state.
Justice Sotomayor wasn’t the only one December 1 to classify the murder of babies as a “philosophical” matter. So did Mr. Stewart, right after his first salvo.
Mr. Stewart: “And I think the philosophical questions Your Honor [Sotomayor] mentioned, all those reasons, that they're hard, they've been debated...they're important, those are all reasons to return this to the people because the people should get to debate these hard issues….” Abortion is “a hot, difficult issue for everyone. It's -- that's why it belongs to the people.”(4)
Footnote 4: In other words, repeal Roe and let “the people”, by voting for state lawmakers, decide whether to continue the slaughter in their states. One estimate is that the liberal states likely to continue it account for 2/3 of abortions, so repealing Roe would stop 1/3.
How can it be for “the people” to decide whether to fully end mass murder, any more than the 14th Amendment let “the people” decide whether to fully end slavery?
Provided one is “human”, “equal protection of the laws” could not be clearer about one's fundamental right to live. It has no degrees of “human”, requiring the status of “fully human” to merit legal protection. It counts no one as “potentially human” or “3/5 human” so murdering them is OK.
If Roe is merely repealed, leaving Democrat states free to continue infanticide, how is that different than Dred Scott v. Sandford which left Democrat states free to continue slavery? Just as Scott should have ended slavery, SCOTUS should now end legal abortion. Slaves at least got to be born!
Calling the murder of unborn humans a “religious” or “philosophical” view is a tool for making “equal protection of the laws” subjective, depriving SCOTUS of jurisdiction over states’ violations of fundamental rights. As if to say “killing those humans may be murder to you, but I have my religion too.”
Are blacks, whites, immigrants, “the rich”, Jews, Christians, women, children, police, vaccine/mask “deniers” – whoever the world’s philosophers want to dehumanize next – humans only philosophically? Does their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” rest on your personal philosophy or religious view? Then what could possibly be “wrong” with killing, enslaving, censoring, deporting, defunding, deplatforming, quarantining, firing them? As long as we do it by the Rule of Law – redefined as laws singling out just them?
Hinduism’s caste system, Islam’s belief that Christians and Jews are literally “apes and pigs”, Hitler’s “Master Race”, the antebellum South’s slavery, Dred Scott’s “negro of the African race [is an] article of property”, Communism’s “useless eaters”, Margaret Sanger’s “inferior races”, do not say their victims are not humans at all, but are inferior. Not fully human. All these “philosophies/religions” are held up by elaborate houses of philosophical cards which demonize equal rights such as “all men are created equal” (Declaration) and “equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment). Here is an example from this Court:
“...the men who framed this declaration [of Independence] were great men -- high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it [the Declaration, including: “all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”] would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, [apparently invoking Genesis 9:25-27] and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property(5), and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.” Dred Scott, 60 U.S. 393, 410.
Footnote 5: “Never”, indeed! Numbers 10 tells what God did to people who criticized Moses for marrying a black woman. The prophet Zedekiah was apparently the son of a black man according to verse 1. God let the cruel Babylonians and Assyrians punish and enslave His people, but then their cruelty was punished in turn. Ethiopians had only positive interactions with God’s people - with Moses, Solomon, and the Apostle Phillip. The New Testament repeatedly lists several “suspect classes” and declares them all equal in Christ. 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11.
The failure of some adults to grasp the humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing babies, since the history of Hell on Earth in every generation is framed by the failure of a frightening number of adults to grasp the full humanity of quite a number of discrete groups of born persons.
Justice Sotomayor’s attack was exactly like that of the Pharisees in Matthew 21:23-27. She pounced on Mr. Stewart with “by what authority do you claim the babies of humans are humans?” But she surely didn’t want to admit that babies are humans, because then you would have asked “then why do you want to kill them?” and she was afraid to say babies are not humans because she “fears the people”. She would be making a claim which no American legal authority – no court-recognized finder of fact – has previously dared to make.
Not even Roe so dared, saying “the judiciary...is in no position to speculate”.
To treat something as “unknowable” has to mean “as a fact”, since no mystery is beyond the reach of philosophical speculation, or of made-up religion.
But if the humanity of babies of humans really is unknowable, a matter left for subjective philosophy and false religions, (the true religion doesn’t leave it as unknowable), how is it “difficult” for individuals or whole societies to make up an answer?
If all humans are in fact “fully human”, 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” for every last one of us is the only sure foundation for the freedom of any of us.
Were babies not in fact human, killing them would clearly not be murder. Moms would have as much right to terminate their children as they do to terminate their children’s tonsils.
The only way the issue can be “difficult” is if “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is unable to speculate” about “when life begins”.
Balancing Interests: Moms v. Babies – NOT hard
Justice Sotomayor responded to Mr. Stewart’s statement that Gonzales recognized unborn babies as human, by insisting moms’ interests outweighed babies’ interests:
“women who are poor….are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life, 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term than it is to have an abortion before viability….if states can take control of women’s bodies and force them to endure months of pregnancy and childbirth, then they will never have equal status under the Constitution.”
Even if these claims weren’t exaggerated, it is not hard to balance the interests of moms and their babies.
JUSTICE ALITO: -- look at the interests on...the other side. The...fetus has an interest in having a life...
There is zero contest between a mother’s health risk, college plans, career, or mental health, and a baby’s murder which ends all possible health, college, career, or mental health.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: “...the reason this issue is hard, is that you can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick….When you have those two interests at stake and both are important, ...why should this Court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?”
This can only be “hard” while you hesitate to say what everybody knows, nobody quite denies, and what every court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position has unanimously “established”: that unborn babies are conscious, innocent human beings.
The Court can too outlaw abortion in all states, said Roe
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: “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?”
MR. STEWART: “Correct, Your Honor.”
SCOTUS does have authority under the 14th Amendment to prohibit all states from legalizing the murder of the people of any group. All the court has to do, according to Roe, is “establish...personhood” of the unborn. Has Gonzales already done that? No one challenged Mr. Stewart’s statement about it.(6)
Footnote 6: “Gonzales pretty clearly recognized that before viability, we are talking, with unborn life, with a human organism.”
But far more evidence than Gonzales is available. When babies are “recognizably human”, they are “persons”, Roe said. Babies are recognized as human by Gonzales, a fact never quite denied December 1, along with every court-recognized finder of fact that has taken a position.
“Personhood” being “established”, even Roe acknowledges that abortion can’t remain legal since the 14th Amendment protects the right to live of human babies.(7)
Footnote 7: “If...personhood is established, ...the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
This isn’t difficult
Mr. Stewart called it “hot” and “difficult” whether to keep protecting murder!
No doubt it was “difficult”:
- for slave owners to lose their slaves.
- for Southern whites to let Blacks not only vote but hold office!
- to let Black children in schools built for whites.
- to let blacks drink from redneck water fountains.
- for men to let women vote.
- for parents to pull their money-making kids out of sweat shops and put them in school.
- for Mormon men to limit themselves to one wife at a time.
When did that become a reason to let states violate the 14th Amendment?
An issue for fact finders, not fringe philosophers
Are judges seriously unable to tell if babies of humans are humans?
Is it “irrelevant” to whether we ought to murder them, that they are human? That’s what Roe said – according to every state appellate ruling in an Operation Rescue-type case!
Roe ruled, they all said, as “a matter of law”. Juries shouldn’t even be allowed to know the defendant’s only defense, when the defense is that they were saving hundreds of human lives, since Roe made those lost lives “irrelevant” “as a matter of law”.
(Which raises a serious question: how is a defendant given his constitutional right to trial by jury, when the judge decides not only the law but the only disputed fact, [by ruling that the disputed fact is irrelevant as a matter of law], and doesn’t allow the defendant to tell the jury that he even has a defense, much less what it is?)
SCOTUS never said “when [protectable] life [in fact] begins” is irrelevant
Fortunately that is the opposite of Roe’s ruling that if it is “established” that babies are people (implied: in fact), then “of course” no state can legalize murdering them since the 14th Amendment protects their fundamental right to life.
Nor has any later precedent declared it “irrelevant”, in deciding whether to protect baby killers, whether babies are people.
Roe said the opposite: if doctors and preachers can’t agree “when life begins”, mere judges, “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, [are] in no position to speculate”. SCOTUS doesn’t defer to the superior expertise of doctors and preachers on a matter of law!
Fact finders are unanimous! How can there be any further doubt in any court that protectable life begins from Minute One, now that every court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position has so ruled?
States: 38 states have “unborn victims of violence” laws. 28 states explicitly justify them through various ways of saying unborn babies are people.
Congress: “‘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”, 18 U.S.C. § 1841 (d). (Below: why this is not neutralized by section (c).)
Juries: before judges applied the fiction that Roe made the full humanity of unborn babies irrelevant, the juries shown the Necessity Defense ruled for Operation Rescue-type door-blocking defendants because they were saving human lives. (Described at Necessity as a Defense to a Charge of Criminal Trespass in an Abortion Clinic, 48 U.Cin.L.Rev. 501, 502 (1979).(8)
Footnote 8: I myself was a defendant in what may have been the last trial where a jury was allowed to hear the defense. Thanks to unusual circumstances we have an official record of the fact that the humanity of the unborn was the only issue before the jury. <p>The case was 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. <p>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 charges against the remaining defendants. <p>He wrote that both sides stipulated to 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. The verdict of the jury indicates the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the one essential element of the charge which remained in issue. In a trial of the remaining 138 Defendants, [one of the 155 arrested was juvenile and was not charged], a jury would be presented with this identical issue. (So the remaining charges should be dropped by the theory of Issue Preclusion.
Expert witnesses in door-blocking cases, involving 60,000 arrests according to Operation Rescue before F.A.C.E. ended most of them, all said “(protectable human) life begins” at conception or fertilization. The same Cincinnati article reported: “If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence [from doctors, geneticists, or scientists] is rarely contradicted by the prosecution.…”
If the consensus of every court-recognized fact-finder is not enough to “establish” (Roe’s term) a fact, no fact can ever be established. If unanimous fact finders are not enough for a judge to know a fact, no judge can ever know anything.
We know babies are people, making abortion a grave crime, the same way we know blacks are people, making their slavery a grave crime, and children are people, making their sex trafficking a grave crime. We, as a nation under a Rule of Law, know because people in every forum created by law to establish truth – juries, expert witnesses, legislatures, and a few judges that have taken a position – (should we add “the Union army”?) have been provided with the best evidence available to humans, and have ruled, which regarding abortion is unanimous on both issues. (9)
Footnote 9:(SCOTUS has never ruled that protectable “life” does not begin at fertilization. From January 22, 1973 to December 1, 2021, SCOTUS has abstained, saying, like the Pharisees in Matthew 21:23-27, “we cannot tell”. SCOTUS has declined to take cases where “when life begins” was an unavoidable issue, beginning with Doe v. Israel, 1 Cir., 1973, 482 F.2d 156, cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993)
Fact: abortion kills human babies. In America, a legally recognizable fact.
What is irrelevant is whether babies are people as a matter of law. Laws – statutory and case laws – that protect murderers from lifesavers are unconstitutional.
Fact: killing human babies is murder, whether at two months, two years, or 20 years.
Fact: Roe, Casey, and the rest, violate the enumerated fundamental right that trumps all others.
Fact: Our Constitution does not let any court, or any state, keep murder legal.
Roe and its wicked children have cost this Court the loss of far deeper than mere respect. To the extent courts don’t outlaw but instead protect murder, they abandon their purpose, which is to oppose crime. To the extent courts side with the worst criminals against their victims, there is no further reason for them.
Don’t worry whether the public will perceive that you are moved by public pressure.(10) Worry whether the most principled segment of the public – the segment that cares most whether laws conform best to the principles of Heaven or of Hell, of Good or Evil – perceive that SCOTUS justices are guilty of mass murder – genocide. Infanticide. Worry whether that perception is correct.
Footnote 10: BREYER: “it is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure, not political pressure.”
Don’t worry whether the public will think precedents will reverse “just because” of turnover on this Court.(11) Worry that the public’s reason for such contentious involvement in judicial appointments has been desperate resolve to remove criminals, and this reason has a basis.
Footnote 11: Breyer, quoting Casey: [we don’t want the public to think, when we correct a terrible precedent, that our action is] “but a surrender to political pressures or new members.”
Don’t worry about your reputation when you should be worrying whether you are an accessory to murder.
Surely no justice means to have blood on his hands. Even Roe said “we...would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion...if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.”
But “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. How much infanticide can ignorance of legally recognizable facts excuse?
Mr. Stewart answered Justice Sotomayor about the basis for his conclusion: “advancement in...knowledge and concern about such things as fetal pain, what we know the child is doing and looks like and is fully human from...very early…an unborn life being poked and then recoiling in the way one of us would recoil.”
When Justice Sotomayor said even dead people can recoil at a poke, she added another element that liberals need before they will accept that babies of people are people: proof that “there’s consciousness.”
“Fully human” certainly implies consciousness. But to whatever extent it doesn’t, consciousness is irrelevant, as an additional element requiring separate proof. Our laws protect unconscious people.
But how can any conscious person deny that unborn babies are conscious? We have whole industries built on educational experiences for unborn babies, like putting a speaker on mom’s belly and playing Mozart.
Ironically, Justice Sotomayor’s insistence on evidence of “consciousness” that goes beyond evidence of humanity runs headlong into religion. Because human “consciousness” has qualities that can’t be explained by any known physical process. Only the existence of a “soul” can account for them. Fortunately for the cause of understanding reality, Roe listed “infused with a soul” as a definition of “person”, which opens the door wide to discussing what that means.
The capacity to choose between good and evil – to choose to behave either as an angel or as a demon – is a capacity that distinguishes humans from animals. It is not related to brain size, since animals with much larger brains lack this capacity, while babies with much smaller than adult brains demonstrate this capacity. No known physical process accounts for this ability, supporting the almost universally accepted belief that souls attach to our bodies whose capacity for discerning good from evil and choosing between them is unrelated to physical body size. While our physical bodies have stages of development, so that we can talk about points in time before we have, for example, arms and legs, souls have no known pre-conscious stage.
Being “scrupulously neutral” about murder is not a virtue
Mr. Stewart: “Justice Kavanaugh, you had it exactly right when you -- when you used the term scrupulously neutral. I think that’s a very good description of what we're asking for here. I think it’s the problem and the value that has evaded the Court and will continue to evade this Court under Roe and Casey, but that is...exactly right. This is a hard issue. [Aarrgh! Not!] ... I would emphasize, Your Honor, that, as you said, there are interests here on...both sides. There are interests for everyone involved. This is unique for the woman. It’s unique for the unborn child too whose life is at stake in all of these decisions.”
How can it be commendable to be “scrupulously neutral” about whether to let states continue the slaughter which has already claimed 60 million human lives? Which, as if that doesn’t matter enough, violates the 14th Amendment, as Roe explains?
KAVANAUGH: [Prolifers argue that] “because the Constitution is neutral, that this Court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but, because, they say, the Constitution doesn't give us the authority, we should leave it to the states and we should be scrupulously neutral on the question and that they are saying here, I think, that we should return to a position of neutrality on that contentious social issue rather than continuing to pick sides on that issue.”
With all due respect to prolife lawyers, who indeed did say such things in amici and in the principal brief of the Plaintiff: seriously, is the Constitution not prolife?
“Life”, not murder, is the first listed right in the Declaration. Meanwhile abortion, baby killing, and murder are not only not enumerated but are regarded in every other context as a violation of fundamental rights.
Presumably Justice Kavanaugh means the Constitution does not explicitly say whether unborn babies are fully human and thus do fully merit protection of their right to live. But “fully human” is a status which is accepted by most and denied by none in this transcript. And as Mr. Stewart pointed out, it is accepted in Gonzales.
Plus, Section 5, the enabling clause of the 14th Amendment, gives Congress the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the Amendment. That necessarily encompasses the authority to establish the facts that are the basis for evaluating when “equal protection of the laws” needs to be “enforced”.
It gives Congress greater authority than courts to certify a discrete [distinct] class [category] of people whose enumerated rights are violated. And Congress certified, in 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), that all unborn babies, “at every stage of gestation”, are people (“members of the species homo sapiens”).
Failure of laws to equally protect some does not make them less human
18 U.S.C. 1841(d) establishes the fact that unborn babies of humans are humans. But is this fact, established in clause (d), neutralized 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”?
That mistake was made by prolife leaders and Republican Congressmen who said “By its express terms, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not…in any way affect nor alter, the ability of a woman to have an abortion.” - report2004.pdf House Judiciary Cmte, 2/11/2004
Not directly, and not yet. But as Democrats pointed out in House debate, that finding of fact, if ever argued in defense of a major abortion restriction, would be a powerful challenge. They didn’t believe (d) was neutralized by (c). Perhaps because they understood that a law not yet in step with facts does not block future lawmakers, state or federal, from correcting deficiencies.
Nor do legislatures need Congress’ past “permission” to obey the Constitution. The fact that “life begins” at fertilization established in Section (d), combined with section 5 of the 14th Amendment which gives Congress the final word on disputes about the application of “equal protection of the laws”, requires all states to outlaw abortion.
Footnote #54 of Roe. 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 often interpreted.
Although the ideal of law is equal protection of all humans, “innocent until proved guilty” illustrates the inability of courts, when proof is scarce, to equally protect everyone from crime, without that inability proving that crime victims aren’t human!
A legal reason for stiffer penalties for abortionists than for moms is (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). (See this principle in Luke 12:47-48.) A legal reason for a “life of the mother” exception is that while we are inspired by people who give their lives for others, we can’t require them to by law.(12) Even our Good Samaritan laws, requiring people at serious accident scenes to help, are sparse and inconsistent.
Footnote 12: Deuteronomy 20:8 illustrates how God calls us all to be heroes, but does not force anyone by law; cowards may retreat from risk without penalty.
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, and cannot be taken seriously.
“The...equal protection clause… does not compel...Legislatures to prohibit all like evils, or none. A Legislature may hit at an abuse which it has found, even though it has failed to strike at another.” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 151 (1938).
But Roe did say babies aren’t people as a matter of law
Roe said “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 156-157. This was based on the “observation...that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today.”
That acknowledges SCOTUS’ respect for lawmakers as court-recognized fact finders. In the years since Roe the consensus of court-recognized fact finders became overwhelming. Roe has been criticized for overlooking precedents, including precedents cited in Roe, that affirm unborn “personhood”.
But even without these facts, the above quote can’t be taken as an absolute holding, unmitigated by Roe’s statements that judges are “in no position to speculate”, but that if it is “established” that babies are people then “of course” the 14th Amendment protects their right to life.
Our “unalienable rights” are not subject to our “value” to others!
Justice Kavanaugh: “And there will be different answers [to how many babies to murder] in Mississippi and New York, different answers in Alabama than California, because they’re two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently. Why is [letting voters decide how many babies to murder] not the right answer?
People in murder-loving states don't get to murder millions of people just because they love to, they don’t “value” babies, and they vote for the right to keep doing it.
We claim to have a rule of “law”. “Law” means restrictions that operate equally upon everyone.
To deliberately, consciously legalize murder has done much harm to our nation, and the more deliberately and consciously we continue, the greater the threat to all our freedoms.
What has changed in 50 years?
RICKELMAN: “And, in fact, there is nothing different. There is no less need today than 30 years ago or 50 years ago for women to be able to make this fundamental decision for themselves about their bodies, lives, and health.”
Nothing different? Is the consensus since 1973 of every court-recognized fact finder who has taken a definite position on when “life begins”, that it begins at “conception” (if not before), nothing?
Nothing different? Has our expanding knowledge of what God is creating from the first cell division done nothing to elevate our reverence for unborn life? 1973 was 35 years before the first human chromosome was decoded.
50 years ago Justice Blackmun said one definition of “person” is “recognizably human”, but he was deceived by fraudulent illustrations in Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary that made embryos of humans unrecognizable as humans, by making them look almost identical to embryos of monkeys, pigs and rabbits. First published in 1866, Ernst Haeckel’s illustrations were so obviously fraudulent, even to medical researchers in 1866, that a tribunal of his own university convicted him. He blamed his illustrator for the “error”, without admitting that he drew his own illustrations. (Russell Grigg, “[http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered Fraud Rediscovered")
“His piece de resistance was his manipulation of the drawing of a human embryo by Ecker. He changed the details of the human eye significantly, made the human posterior twice its actual length, took 2 mm off the head, and like the Macaque, removed the arms, legs and heart” (“The Life of Ernst Haeckel,” Creation Worldview Ministries)
“A major error of Haeckel’s embryo chart is the misidentification of “gill slits” on the human embryo. In fact, they are not gill slits at all. They have no respiratory function. “The so-called ‘gill slits’ are really wrinkles in the throat region. This body tissue becomes the palatine tonsils, middle ear canal, parathyroid gland, and thymus. ... These folds in the neck region of the mammalian embryo are not gills in any sense of the word and never have anything to do with breathing. They are merely inward folds, or wrinkles, in the neck region resulting from the sharply down-turned head and protruding heart of the developing embryo” (Alan Gillen, Body by Design, p. 33)
Here is Justice Blackmun’s complete definition of “persons”:
“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.’” Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 133.
Had Justice Blackman not been deceived by Ernst Haeckel, and if he had the benefit of medical knowledge available today, he would have seen how early babies of humans are “recognizably human”. Maybe Roe v. Wade would have outlawed abortion in every state instead of legalizing it in every state.
Nothing different, indeed.
But there is one likeness I pray will change: the disinclination of judges to think “Since babies of humans are humans, why doesn't that mean killing them is murder? If abortion is murder, and no court can deliberately legalize murder without undermining the reason for courts, shouldn’t we rule that no state can legalize murder?
“‘When [protectable] life begins’ is about as ‘philosophical’ as whether blacks and immigrants, who are certainly under the jurisdiction of our laws, are ‘persons’ with the fundamental right to liberty. We had better treat such ‘questions’ as facts which we had better get right if we care about our own freedom, because as legal abortion has shown, a nation can't trample the rights of some without diminishing the freedom of all.”
Who shall we make it easy for: babies, or judges and lawyers?
Mr. Stewart eloquently detailed the ways Roe and Casey have complicated the lives of judges and lawyers. The precedents are too hard to figure out. It is nearly impossible to predict how a judge will rule on a new regulation. This reason to repeal Roe was a theme December 1 and in several briefs.
STEWART: ... the undue burden standard, it's -- it's a very hard standard to apply. It's not objective.
With all due respect for judges and lawyers, that is a silly reason to overturn Roe.
Roe and Casey have ended the lives of unborn fully human babies. Overturn them because of that. Worry more whether your rulings end lives, than whether they complicate lives.
The indirect influence of the Bible in court-recognized fact-finding, which is not neutralized by other religions
The Bible can be a source of court-recognized authority, which is even acknowledged in Roe, in ways that other religions and fringe philosophers are not.
Especially as a witness to facts not humanly testable. And in ways which do not “establish” a religion.
The Establishment Clause originally meant only that no one should be forced to attend, or tithe to, any church. SCOTUS has expanded it to mean there should not be any government endorsement of religion, although where courts will draw the line next year has some of the unpredictability of Casey's “undue burden”.
I guess schools can teach the Bible as history, but cannot say it is true. But in the controversy before us, it would be very helpful to know if what the Bible says is true about unborn babies being “persons”, “infused with a soul”, or conscious.
For example, Luke 1:44 says unborn babies are not only conscious but able to discern a righteous voice and jump for joy, indicating ability to choose good over evil. Psalm 139:13-16 describes a “person” before there are any limbs. Isaiah 1:5 says our mission in life is assigned even before conception.
Are we allowed to take judicial notice of what God says? Because if God is correct, we have barrels of baby blood on our hands. As Roe put it, “the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” As Roe acknowledged, it is crucial to “establish” whether the babies we are killing are “persons”, meaning “infused with a soul”. But how do we know when a baby gets a soul? What human science can answer? Science can’t even detect a soul in a judge.
Roe rightly turned to religion. It was a rather spotty analysis, quoting only one of over a dozen relevant Bible verses – the only one over which there has been confusion among theologians, (Exodus 21:22), and without even summarizing any points made.
But Roe correctly regarded theologians as expert witnesses of value to courts.
“When those trained in... 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...when life begins.”
Although it would have made more sense to consult their source: the Bible. But if government can’t endorse one religion over another, how shall we weight the Bible’s teaching that protectable human life begins at Minute One, against teachings of Edgar Cayce or some Jewish theories that the soul doesn’t enter the body until about birth?
Even if prohibition of “establishment of religion” means the Bible should not be trusted more than other literature, does it require us to trust the Bible less than other literature? We test the credibility of all other literature much the same way we test the credibility of a murder witness. We test those claims we can. If they pass our scrutiny, we give more weight to those claims we are unable to test but which we need to confirm.
By this process, we can note the overwhelming scrutiny the Bible has survived, from every conceivable scientific discipline, and compare that with the near-zero scrutiny applied to other religious writings, often because other writings have few claims that are testable. Is it not lawful to note that comparison, during our inquiry whether the babies we are killing are human beings with conscious souls (Luke 1:44)?
The Bible Uniquely Supports Equal Rights
Religions and philosophies which say other races, colors, and religions are born for slavery and cruel death, should be expected, on the question of who is fully human and when, to give an answer that justifies their cruel prejudice. Such an answer has limited value to a nation with a 14th Amendment.
Exodus 12:49, by contrast, is the precursor of our 14th Amendment, so we may expect the Bible’s principles to support equality for all. In fact, with the verses before, the passage gives even immigrants the full rights of citizens, upon meeting citizen standards. That is even more than our 14th Amendment does, as applied so far: our “undocumented” are given some protection, but not the Fundamental Right of Liberty.(13)
Footnote 13: If too much immigration really were a drag on our economy and harmful to citizens, that might count as a “compelling government interest” that would justify the immigration quotas which force desperate millions who just want to work hard to come illegally or risk death at home. But the specter of economic harm from more immigration is not raised by qualified economists, but by “undocumented economists” with zero university credentials in economics. (Unless that has changed in the last few years.) So in a trial challenging quotas, those alleging economic harm if quotas were repealed would not even be qualified to testify as “expert witnesses”.
Only the Bible calls for freedom of speech and religion and a vote for all. Our very definition of “law”, as rules binding equally upon all - even judges and lawmakers, 1 Samuel 10:25, is exclusively Biblical. Where do you find it in religions without Bible influence?
Juries, (Exodus 21:22), the requirement of multiple witnesses for a conviction, (Numbers 35:30) bribes outlawed, (Proverbs 17:23) the election of leaders from the lowest to the highest, (Deuteronomy 1:13) all were in the Bible centuries before any of these rights found their way elsewhere. The basic principles of our criminal and civil laws are given in the Bible.
Freedom of Speech and Religion, and a vote for all, is documented to originate in the Bible by the catechism of the Separatists (“Pilgrims”) who developed these skills in their Sabbath afternoon forums. It is these freedoms, not found in other religions or philosophies that were not influenced by the Bible, that spread and shaped America’s political systems – from the Bible.
So many of our criminal and civil laws are shaped around basic principles in the Bible, inspiring freedoms not found in nations whose dominant worldview is other than the Bible.
It doesn’t seem like a good idea to censor the origin and preserver of our freedoms. Or to give the Bible no more weight in our inquiry who to count as “persons” than pagan superstitions built around cruel, violent dehumanization.
CONCLUSION: There is no need to repeal Roe. Simply update it. Simply acknowledge that what Roe said, once established, would require the outlawing of abortion in every state, has now been overwhelmingly established.
But you can overrule Footnote #54.
And you can repeal Casey’s dismissal of murdering babies as a “philosophical” question, since the tragic effect of this classification has risen beyond the level of dicta.
(Not sent to judges:)
Why won’t conservative judges simply acknowledge this abundantly proved, dispositive fact? [that babies of humans are humans.] Why won't prolife lawyers press this dispositive fact? Why won't prolife leaders place this dispositive fact at the heart of prolife legislation they support, so that courts will have to squarely address it?
Why do churches oppose any forum on their premises where solutions can be debated and scrutinized – a forum as open as 1 Corinthians 14 describes, in combination with the priority on taking action in Titus 3:8-9, opposed to prayer without action – James 2:13-16, and placing importance on lobbying government as authorized in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, in order to give prolife leaders, lawmakers, and lawyers better information?
Fringe philosophers aren't court-recognized fact finders. Or fringe preachers who dispute the authority upon which their claim on the authority to preach is based.