Revisiting Roe v. Wade
“For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth.”
On September 26, 2020, President Donald J. Trump announced his third choice for an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. His selection will replace the Liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg who, for twenty-seven years helped to destroy the moral fabric of American society, in part, by protecting the most perverse of human behavior reflected in the LGBTQ community. The initials stand for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer.
It is amazing that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was able to become an Associate Justice on the highest court in America, given her fundamental contempt for the Founding Fathers, and the document they drafted. Said Ginsberg, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.” In contrast, during her announcement for the Court, Judge Barrett said that she loves the United States of America, and she loves the Constitution of the United States of America.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg has gone to stand before the Great Judge of the Universe to give an account for her rulings against the laws of nature, and the Creator. She has left behind a new opportunity to right the wrong that has been done in the name of equality and social justice.
There is hope in the hearts of many God fearing and patriotic people that the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court will be a Constitutionalist, and a Literalist, in their judicial philosophy. Amy Coney Barrett is suspected to be such a person. This is not bad. As Fox News Chief Correspondent, Brit Hume has noted, “Amy Coney Barrett is not ‘wildly’ outside of mainstream” America.
Those on the left, however, have said they worry that Barrett will undo precedents like Roe v. Wade, and impose her faith on others.
There is no need for this particular concern, because the faith of Amy Coney Barrett will not decide the merits of Roe v Wade, the Law itself will do that. All Justice Barrett has to do is faithfully apply Constitutional principles to Roe v. Wade, and the ruling will collapse. Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor for National Review explains. “The main argument for overturning Roe v. Wade and its successors is that no right to abortion can plausibly be derived from the text, original understanding, history, or structure of the Constitution. Robert VerBruggen is right that the unworkability of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence — its shifting details and rationales, its lack of predictability and guidance for legislators — is a subordinate argument against it.”
According to Tyler Olson, a correspondent for Fox News,
“Barrett has been involved with a handful of cases that implicated abortion in the 7th Circuit. In one 2018 case she dissented from a denial of en banc rehearing — meaning she wanted the entire court to reexamine a decision by three judges — after the 7th Circuit ruled unconstitutional an Indiana law banning abortions for reasons relating to the sex, race or potential disability of the fetus. The law also banned fetuses from being disposed of as medical waste.
Barrett joined a dissent by Judge Frank Easterbrook that labeled the ban on abortions for sex, race, and disability reasons “the eugenics statute” and argued the Supreme Court had never ruled on such a law, so it should not be automatically considered illegitimate.
‘None of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children,” the dissent read. “Does the Constitution supply a right to evade regulation by choosing a child’s genetic makeup after conception, aborting any fetus whose genes show a likelihood that the child will be short, or nearsighted, or intellectually average, or lack perfect pitch—or be the ‘wrong’ sex or race? [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey did not address that question.”
For that reason, Easterbrook said, in the opinion Barrett joined, the Supreme Court should weigh in on the “eugenics statute,” rather than the circuit court. The dissent also argued that laws on the disposal of fetal remains had been “held valid” elsewhere in the country, and that they are reasonable. For that reason, the dissent read, the 7th Circuit could rehear that part of the case and fix its alleged error.
The Supreme Court in an unsigned opinion later sided with Easterbrook, and by extension Barrett, to uphold the Indiana law on the fetal remains, but denied to hear the question on the “eugenics statute”, because no other circuit court had heard a case on such a law.”
For those not familiar with “eugenic statute”, it is worth the time to learn about that set of beliefs and practices, that seek to improve the genetic quality of a human population.
Margaret Higgins Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, was a strong advocate of eugenics, and sought to eliminate the black community, but in secret. “”We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”(— Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939).
Adolf Hitler, and the Nazis, believed in eugenics, and slaughtered over six million Jews to purify the Aryan race. In addition, many other individuals were targeted for destruction in private and state-operated institutions. They were deemed as “life unworthy of life” (German, Lebensunwertes Leben).
Among those determined to be “unworthy of life” were prisoners, degenerates, dissidents, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (German: erbkranken) including people who were feeble-minded, epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind, homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will.
If God is merciful, and hears the silent cries of the unborn, Roe v Wade will be revisited in the near future. It was be re-evaluated according to Constitutional principles, and the eugenic statue and be overturned for the glory of God, and the good of millions yet unborn. The slaughter of the innocent may yet cease in America. Precious babies might yet be allowed to join those who seek that which is self-evident, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).