Alito Draft Treats ITS A BABY as a Matter of Opinion

From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)

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

     This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) June 16, 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!


In this letter mailed June 15, 2022 to the six conservative Supreme Court justices, I ---

  • Pray for their safety
  • marvel that the Alito leaked draft STILL treats "it's a baby" as an opinion that states should get to have, not a fact, making baby killing murder, which no state can do.
  • point out that reducing the bloodshed by only a quarter isn't going to end their involvement in aborticide, or their danger
  • point out likely ways evidence that babies are humans in fact will come before them, forcing them to eventually acknowledge the fact: they can't put off forever ruling that babies are real people
  • lament the resistance in Iowa among prolife leaders and lawmakers to bringing this kind of case so that infanticide can end by this Christmas IN EVERY STATE

Letter to Supreme Court Justices June 15

Justice (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito)

The Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street N.E.

Washington, D.C., 20543

I pray for your safety.

I don’t know if you will release your Dobbs ruling before you receive this letter, but it won’t be your last aborticide ruling if it is anything like the leaked draft, reducing bloodshed by only a quarter. So I pray that for as long as danger continues, you will place your full faith in God, the source of all protection. And that God will keep us all safer than we deserve.

I read that the stated purpose of the threats is to scare you into weakening your ruling beyond the leaked draft. I wonder if the draft itself was weakened by your anticipation of the danger we now see.

IT'S A BABY is not a Matter of Opinion

Why else won’t you treat “a human person comes into being at conception and...abortion ends an innocent life” as a fact to be established by court-recognized fact finders, making aborticide legally recognizable as murder which no state can legalize? Why else do you treat “it’s a baby” merely as an opinion that “some believe fervently”, which is mitigated because “others feel just as strongly” that “full equality” eludes women who can’t murder babies?(1) You don’t treat the humanity of any other “suspect class” as subjective. Not eveItalic textn the right to life of eagle eggs.

God’s enemies have only such power to hurt others as God allows. Job 1 illustrates how even Satan has to get God’s permission before he can touch anybody. I pray therefore that you will strengthen your ruling all the way to reality, realizing that the only thing worth fearing is letting go of God’s hand.

ITS A BABY - that's a FACT

You have to know after a half century of torturing babies to death that babies are in fact people, especially now that every court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position, in every category of fact finders, has so ruled.(2) That makes irrelevant what anyone “fervently believes” or “strongly feels”. The 14th Amendment outlaws infanticide as surely as it outlaws slavery, in every state.(3)

The leaked draft quotes Justice Scalia: “The permissibility of abortion [is] to be citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

A Right to Murder - not on any Ballot

Not if babies are in fact, objectively, people. We don’t vote on our right to murder. The 14th Amendment didn’t let “the people’s representatives” restore slavery, and it doesn’t let voters perpetuate infanticide. Not so long as “all men [including wo-men] are created equal”.(4)

14th Amendment was passed specifically to protect those who “as a matter of law” were never treated as “persons in the whole sense”

Lower appellate courts in Operation Rescue-type cases said Roe made babies non-persons “as a matter of law”. But Roe passed on the question, saying judges 50 years ago were “unable to speculate”.(5)

Had 14th Amendment protection been only for those who are legally recognized as human, we could still have slavery simply by declining to legally recognize a discrete class of people as fully human. Like, 3/5 human. Or maybe 1% human, for a baby weighing an ounce.

Repealing Roe while calling ITS A BABY a Matter of Opinion won't end aborticide cases

Repealing Roe will save millions of lives, but will leave “the elephant in the room”. The “blue” states will keep it legal along with a few “red” states like Iowa, whose state supreme court ruled that aborticide remains a “fundamental right” in Iowa regardless of what SCOTUS does.

Prolife Confusion: the Facts are IN - stop waiting for more Laws

Unfortunately lawmakers here in Iowa think that can only be corrected by passing a state constitutional amendment.(6) And then what? Wait another 50 years of chipping away one regulation at a time as state courts cling to murder as long, and by the same verbiage, as SCOTUS has?

One day such insanity will come before you, challenging you to legally recognize aborticide as murder. Maybe an amendment to 18 USC 1841(c) by Congress will come before you. Or maybe it will come before you when a “sidewalk counselor” in a “blue” state appeals an injunction for “threatening” baby killers by reading to them out of the Bible. Or maybe door blocking will begin again in “blue” states, defended again by the Necessity Defense, and challenging the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances act.

When they do, no ridiculous claimed “fundamental right to murder” will stand. You will finally have to admit, “Emperor aborticide has no legal clothes”, after which you will have to rule that aborticide “of course” cannot remain legal in any state.

That shouldn’t be your worst fear. God rewards those who trust. Psalm 91 promises victory for those who march with Him.(7)

"But aborticide is legal" - NOT!

There is healing power in Biblical truth. The support for the slaughter has been “but it’s legal”, not doubt whether babies are human.(8) When that last prop for slaughter is removed by SCOTUS, that will leave only the glaring fact that aborticide is in fact murder, and is legally recognizable as murder. Although those most committed to Hell will be furious, many Americans, their consciences smitten, will rise up to protect you along with babies.

None of us are entirely innocent of the just sentence “that [the violence] continue until...every drop of blood drawn with the [scalpel] shall be paid by another drawn with the [gun]”, as Lincoln put it. But that doesn’t keep me from praying that we will all be safe anyway. Safer than we deserve.

And that babies will finally be safe. God cares a lot about babies.

In Jesus’ Name (Colossians 3:17)

Dave Leach



Repealing Roe, leaving liberal states free to continue the slaughter, no better than Dred Scott v. Sandford which left liberal states free to continue the slavery

Justice Alito’s draft was not, of course, the first time the humanity of babies was treated as subjective even by conservative justices. At the oral arguments December 1, Justice Kavanaugh said prolifers see aborticide as a “contentious social issue”. Justice Sotomayor called it a “religious view”. AG Stewart called it a “hot, difficult issue”. A “hard issue” which “the people should get to debate”. How can it be for “the people” to debate whether to fully end mass murder, any more than the 14th Amendment let “the people” decide whether to finish ending slavery?

If Roe is merely repealed, leaving liberal states free to continue the slaughter, how is that more enlightened than Dred Scott v. Sandford which left liberal states free to continue the slavery?

As far back as Casey, Justices Thomas, White and Scalia wrote, “There is, of course, no way to determine [whether the unborn are human] as a legal matter; it is, in fact, a value judgment”!!! Any sincere uncertainty then that babies are people has no explanation these 30 years later.


Every court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position: "It's a Baby!"

How can there be any further doubt in any court that protectable life begins from Hour 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 in “findings of facts” 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). (This fact is not neutralized by the law in 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).

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. 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.

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.

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: all said “(protectable human) life begins” at “conception”. Or fertilization. (“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.…” Cincinnati, loc. cit.)

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 (of all who have taken a position) fact finders are not enough for a judge to know a fact, no judge can ever know anything.

We know babies are people, making their dismemberment a grave crime, the same way we know blacks are people, making their slavery 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, very thorough evidence available to humans, and have made their judgment, which regarding aborticide is unanimous.


The "social value" that women have to kill to have "full equality" is held by most non-Christian religions and philosophies but is alien to "all men are created the Image of God"

It is certainly a “sharply conflicting” VALUE to conceive of “full equality” for women as including the right to murder another “invidious class” of “human persons”.

That is a value held by a wide range of non-Biblical religions and philosophies, (Islam’s “apes and pigs”, Communism’s “survival of the fittest”, Hinduism’s caste system, etc.) but is alien to “all men are created equal” of our Declaration and “equal protection of the laws” of our 14th Amendment – principles taken from verses like Genesis 1:27, Exodus 12:49, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, and Matthew 19:14.

It is also a pagan idea to imagine that if someone “feels just as strongly” that a lie is true, that makes it true or cancels evidence – that makes it relevant to a court tasked with establishing facts.


The 14th Amendment protects all who are in fact humans. What is irrelevant is whether they are “persons” “as a matter of law”.

The 14th Amendment restrains states from depriving any discrete class of humans/ persons of “equal protection” of their rights, and especially of their fundamental rights, beginning with the most fundamental right: life. Unborn babies are such a class, according to every American legal authority who has ruled on the question.

The 14th Amendment protects all who are in fact humans. All case law including Roe treats all humans as “persons”, and what is irrelevant is whether they are “persons” “as a matter of law”. The Amendment was passed specifically to protect those who “as a matter of law” were never treated as “persons in the whole sense”.

Had 14th Amendment protection been only for those who are legally recognized as human, we could still have slavery simply by declining to legally recognize a discrete class of people as fully human. Like, 3/5 human. Or maybe 1% human, for a baby weighing an ounce.


Roe treated ITS A BABY as a fact question, for fact finders

This holding, along with the “collapse” clause, shows Roe’s treatment of “when life begins” as a question of fact which, once “established” by, we must presume, fact finders, must “of course” end legal aborticide in every state. The rest of the paragraph says that the reason judges can’t even speculate isthat doctors and preachers can’t agree. This treats doctors and preachers as having greater expertise than SCOTUS justices. Obviously that establishes “when [protectable] life begins” as a question for fact finders; were it a “matter of law”, as lower appellate courts claimed in Operation Rescue cases, SCOTUS justices are the world’s experts and would never defer to doctors and preachers.


For example, prolife legislative leader Rep. Sandy Salmon emailed Monday, “We are pretty limited until we get the ‘Protect Life’ amendment passed in 2021 into our Constitution. The legislature needs to pass it again in 2023 and then it can go on the ballot for a vote of the people. That will enable the legislature to pass laws better protecting the unborn.”


Psalm 91 lists every cagetory of danger that scares humans and promises miraculous, lifelong protection. So wht about martyrs who are slain young by those who hate God? Testimonies by the thousands tell us they choose to love, and indeed many are miraculously preserved, though through suffering. I conclude God is faithful to give us all the resources, protection, and time to complete what will most bless others and fill our own lives with meaning. Truly, we need not fear all the dangers that scare others. They are tools for good.


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”. When you make it clear that killing innocent human beings has always been legally recognizable as murder, people will say “we would not have voted for Democrats had we known their top priority is murder.”