SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE v. WADE: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (June 24, 2022) | Eastern North Carolina Now

    We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly. We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.

    Roe's trimester rule was expressly tied to viability and viability played a critical role in later abortion decisions.

    We must now decide what standard will govern if state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge and whether the law before us satisfies the appropriate standard. Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges. As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution's text or in our Nation's history.

    It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot "substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies." That respect for a legislature's judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a "strong presumption of validity." It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, the protection of maternal health and safety, the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures, the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession, the mitigation of fetal pain, and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

HbAD0


    These legitimate interests justify Mississippi's Gestational Age Act. Except "in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality," the statute prohibits abortion "if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks." The Mississippi Legislature's findings recount the stages of "human prenatal development" and assert the State's interest in "protecting the life of the unborn." The legislature also found that abortions performed after 15 weeks typically use the dilation and evacuation procedure, and the legislature found the use of this procedure "for nontherapeutic or elective reasons [to be] a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession."

    These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents' constitutional challenge must fail. Thus, we end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

    CONCLUSION:

    Now that the Supreme Court has finally come to the right opinion regarding abortion and has over-turned Roe v. Wade, the second of its opinions to stain the moral conscience of our country (the first being the Dred Scott case of 1857, written by Justice Roger Taney which held that negroes, whose ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves," whether enslaved or free, were never intended to be included as citizens of the country and therefore have the right to sue in federal court), it's time for the American people to realize that the high court has NOT stripped women of their "right" to an abortion. It has simply recognized the reality and legality of the issue, which is that it belongs with the individual states, which is where it was vested before the Roe opinion. That power to legislate on abortion now returns back to the states, where it rightfully belongs. The states were originally the ones left with facing these difficult questions and our Founding Founders knew that not every state would have the same answer. But then again, that's how our beautiful, messy system of federalism, liberty, and self-governance works.

    Of course, if the American people truly want a constitutional amendment that identifies and protects a woman's right to an abortion, there is a legal way to do so. It's called the Article V Amendment process. Until that time, all debates, all protests, all drama queen moments, all calls to ignore the Court's ruling, and all calls for insurrection are moot, destructive, and non-value-added. Time to put our big lady and big man underpants on.

    GOING FORWARD: What needs to be done in the wake of Dobbs:

    (1) Since the Dobbs decision rightfully concludes that there is no "constitutional right" to an abortion (no right of a woman to control her fertility), that means abortion is no longer a federal issue and should no longer be addressed by the federal court system. Congress should pass a law that restricts the jurisdiction of the federal court system and eliminates certain issues, including abortion. (See Reference section for treatise on "Congress's Power Over Courts - Jurisdiction Stripping")

    (2) Congress should enact a federal "Definition of Life" law which will define when a human life begins and which includes time(gestational) in the womb.

    We need to be respectful of this landmark abortion ruling. It not only recognizes and revitalizes the Tenth Amendment and the critical principle of States' rights, but it respects the sanctity and vulnerability of unborn human life. That should be an issue that we can all get behind.

HbAD1

    "Our opponents tell us not to interfere with abortion. They tell us not to impose our morality on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before birth. Yet no one calls it imposing morality to prohibit the taking of life after a child is born. We're told about a woman's right to control her own body. But doesn't the unborn child have a higher right, which is to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" -President Ronald Reagan

    "Every legislature, every doctor and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to

    affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives

    are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the

    'quality of life' ethic."
- Ronald Reagan

    References:

    Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

    Mississippi's Gestational Age Law

    "Congress's Power over Courts: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein," Congressional Research Service, August 9, 2018. Referenced at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967#:

    :text=Congress%20has%20gone%20so%20far,of%20interest%20to%20the%20legislature

    "The Supreme Court and Abortion," The John Birch Society, May 17, 2022. https://thenewamerican.com/the-deep-state-supreme-court-and-abortion/

    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 959 (1973) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

    The Liberty Belle, "Roe v. Wade and the US Constitution," May 2022. Referenced at

    https://thelibertybellenc.com/blog/roe-v-wade-and-the-constitution/?mc_cid=fee28544cf&mc_eid=6b18f3e59b


poll#152
With Roe v Wade (originated in 1973) overturned by the US Supreme Court, thereby allowing decisions on abortion legislation completely returned to the states: Where do you find your position on such a "Life and Death" issue for the American People?
  Yes, I approve of the US Supreme Court's decision to reinstate this "medical" issue back to the states' legislative responsibility to regulate.
  No, I believe that every woman should have complete access to abortion on demand.
  This issue is far beyond my intellectual capacity to understand.
583 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?


poll#150
With respect to the leaked opinion not yet written for ratification regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's revisiting the original decision of Roe v Wade, whence now nonstop protests have erupted in neighborhoods where U.S. Supreme Court justices live, exhibiting the firm intent to intimidate these officers of the highest court in the land: What action should the federal authorities take?
  Do nothing ... Protests are a fixture of a free society.
  Enforce the law ... Federal codes exist to prohibit any intimidation through the pubic harassment of federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices.
  I have no idea, however, northern Virginia School Board Members must be shielded from protests at all costs.
548 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back



Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Fines and jail for Swiss citizen that overheat their homes Local News & Expression, Editorials, For Love of God and Country, Op-Ed & Politics America, The Land That I Love

HbAD2

 
Back to Top