New to this column? Please read this introduction explaining its first-person nature.
We PreBorn Americans United are extremely disappointed in the oral arguments (audio, transcripts) made Wednesday morning by Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case directly challenges the Court’s abortion holdings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justices should, in spite of Stewart’s inadequate presentation, overturn those cases and finally end, or at least limit what we call The Great American Abortion Holocaust that has slaughtered 63 million of our innocent brothers and sisters.
Stewart made good points in his argument that states should be allowed to regulate abortion prior to fetal “viability outside the womb,” 22-24 weeks gestation. While he made several references to the preborn as “human life,” his massive failure was not arguing that preborn Americans are “persons” within the language and intent of the 14th Amendment (“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life … without due process of law,” emphasis added) and, therefore, entitle to have our lives protected from the moment of conception/fertilization in every state – yes, even in California and New York!
For example, if the Court in Dobbs accepts Stewart’s argument, each state could establish its own abortion regulations with many continuing to allow abortion on demand. So, instead of 900,000 dead babies per year from 50 states, perhaps, there will “only” be about 300,000 from 20 states.
By failing to argue for our constitutional “personhood,” Stewart clearly acquiesced to Roe and Casey, that preborn Americans are not entitled to be considered constitutional “persons.” Sadly, that means he tacitly accepted that Court’s determination that we are merely “potential life.” Of course, Stewart represented the state of Mississippi and not innocent preborn Americans. Too bad for us.
By accepting the claim we are merely “potential life” and not arguing for us to be considered in the balancing of “competing interests,” Stewart also accepted the Roe Court’s false alternative excluding us: that its role was to balance between two, not three, competing interests, that of a woman’s “right to choose” to kill the living child within her and the state’s interest in preserving “potential life.”
“Potential life” is a biological-nonsense term invented by the Roe Court to rationalize its reality and science-denying decision to authorize history’s most barbaric crime against humanity. “Potential life” is reality- and science-denying because, from conception/fertilization, “the woman” is a mother and the “potential life” inside her is an actual living, human individual she has a moral duty to nurture.
Explaining Roe’s false alternative premised upon acceptance that we are not constitutional “persons,” the Casey Court had this to say:
“The weight to be given this state interest [in protecting potential life], not the strength of the woman’s interest, was the difficult question faced in Roe.” [Page 871.]
Roe’s author, Justice Blackmun, resolved those two conflicting interests by cutting the baby in half… actually, 63 million babies, and counting. Stewart, by the position taken in his briefs and oral argument, accepted the premise which has led to that result.
“… that the Supreme Court is the specific branch of … government which has committed this crime against humanity by forcing all states to legalize abortion.” [Page 2.]
Because what has resulted since the Roe decision is crime against humanity, a genocide of innocent life, PreBorn Americans United demand Nuremberg-style trials to bring to justice the pro-abortion leaders and advocates responsible for the slaughter of our 63 million innocent brothers and sisters.
Stewart also uncritically accepted the Court’s biological-nonsense term, viable outside the womb, a term no life-respecting person ought to use without explain that the term was invented to rationalize The Great American Abortion Holocaust. It is a nonsensical term as applied to the preborn because it describes a rare circumstance that is a fraudulent rule as applied to normal pregnancies (92%).
In the context of the preborn, “viable” means “capable of living” inside our mothers during normal gestation. Justice Blackmun imposed the fraudulent rule because, irrationally and without evidence, he concluded that preborn lives are not meaningful while inside our mothers:
“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability … because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.” [Roe at 163. Emphasis added.]
Roe used “potential life” nine times and Casey about four dozen times. “Viable outside the womb” is ubiquitous in the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, and that murderer’s euphemism has even been included in the dictionary (definition 2(b)). Both terms are Orwellian Newspeak.
All of the oral arguments made in two hours by both sides before the seven justices Dec. 1, and most of the 138 briefs (about 700,000 words) written and filed by both sides and by their amici, are put to shame by the following from the amicus brief of a former frozen embryo, Hannah S., who was “viable outside the womb” when she was conceived in a petri dish! Hannah offers herself to prove that:
“It is logically evident that life begins at fertilization, as the example of Amicus Hannah clearly demonstrates. There is really no need to make something that is so simple complicated.
“You see, a human is a human no matter how small.
“A human is a human no matter which side of the uterine wall [Dr. Seuss footnote omitted].
“It is truly an illusion to say that we cannot determine when life begins – it begins at the beginning.” [Page 20.]
Just as the 14th Amendment was needed to clarify the rights of former slaves, the right of living preborn individuals not to be slaughtered in the womb where we should be the safest needs to be established by the Dobbs Court. Will the Dobbs Court do that, or will it adopt the Roe and Casey premise that rejects our constitutional personhood and “cut the baby in half” … again?
We sincerely hope that the justices read the pro-life amicus briefs that argue for our constitutional personhood.
Please share this column with your friends on both sides of this most important issue as well as on social, print and broadcast media (for past columns, search on “Preborn Americans United”).
And please consider supporting this effort with your greatly appreciated tax-deductible donations to bring you future columns 1) explaining A Declaration of Human and Constitutional Rights by PreBorn Americans, and 2) analyzing and reporting on the 138 briefs filed in Dobbs (some 5,000 to 12,000 words). Donation details are here.
The PreBorn Americans United project can be reached at: [email protected].
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.