BY now, most of you have heard that Roe vs. Wade has been shot down. Good! It deserved to be — because it was bad law. But so is this latest ruling. Once again, the SCOTUS has tried to pass-off on the real issue: defining life.
Look, I have written about this before. You can find the post here:
There Is Not Now, Nor Has There EVER Been A ‘Right’ To Murder An Unborn Child — AND I CAN PROVE IT!
This is a very simple issue — if we would only return to originalist thinking (like the Founders said we are supposed to use when ‘interpreting’ the Constitution).
1st — Ultimately, the Right to life is found in the Declaration of Independence, which is our founding document and carries the weight of law. This is not B3A’s opinion; it is the direct assertion of the Founders! So, it is not open to debate, and the only ones who claim otherwise are those who wish to subvert the foundation of our government.
2nd — Even if we refuse to address the Declaration, then we have the Bill of Rights. When was the last time you read this?
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The unborn child is a human being with an individual Right to their life. As such, the Federal government has a duty to protect the unborn’s life. It is not the woman’s body. This is by definition. So, in order to justify the taking of that child’s life, the woman has to be able to show a compelling need that would also justify the taking of a life from a random person picked off the street. This is the measuring stick against which the woman has to make her case; not the fallacious claim of ‘my body, my choice.’
One more thing: if you think that the unborn is not a human under our laws, you need to return to the Founders. They counted the unborn as a human life from the point of the quickening. They used this point because it was the first sure sign they had in their day that the woman was pregnant. We cannot know if they would have assigned personhood from the first moment ya pregnancy test shows the woman is pregnant, but we can readily infer that they considered an unborn person to be a human life which, according to the Declaration, imparts a right to that life from the moment of creation (‘created equal, and with the inalienable right to life…’).
There! I just wrote the Constitutional opinion the SCOTU still refuses to write, and it is 100% within the Founders’ frame work of the Declaration and Constitution.
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 