A new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a case it has decided to review informs the justices that government isn’t the one that grants life, so it has no authority to allow the “taking of innocent life.”
The abortion case comes out of Mississippi, which has set a new standard of disallowing abortion after 15 weeks – a common standard across Europe. But U.S. standards are far higher.
The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and the brief comes on behalf of the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
It was submitted by William J. Olson, P.C.
The Mississippi case is viewed as an open door for the high court to acknowledge the mistakes made when the Roe v. Wade “right” to abortion was created in 1973, and has Democrats and other leftists so alarmed they are openly discussing “packing” the court with liberal judges to avoid a decision with which they disagree.
President Biden even has appointed a long list of abortion advocates and far-left activists to “review” the Supreme Court and make recommendations about changes they would like to see so that their perspective is support by court rulings every time.
The brief explains there is no support in the Constitution, especially the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, for allowing the violent destruction of unborn children, acts the Biden administration is trying to force American taxpayers to fund.
“If a person’s ‘liberty’ can be interpreted by a court to allow him or her to destroy human life, we have adopted a principle that has no limits. Indeed, the logic of a ‘right’ to an abortion undermines the claim of any right to respect because it violates the intrinsic dignity of every human being.
“Since ‘life’ comes from our Creator, it is not a privilege bestowed upon us by government, and government has a duty to protect it. Beyond question, government has no power whatsoever to authorize the taking of innocent human life,” the brief says.
The filing explains the original Roe decision is “built on sand,” because it “misrepresented the common law regarding abortion. It assumed based on skewed data that abortion was as safe as delivering a healthy baby.”
Further, it “erroneously assumed that abortion statutes enacted by states were not intended to protect the life of the preborn,” the filing explains. And, “Roe fabricated a constitutional right to destroy life that is not anywhere supported by Constitution based on lies that now have been exposed.”
The filing calls for the justices to “repudiate” the “eugenics movement” and its influence on constitutional law.
“Abortion’s disproportionate killing of black unborn children by the tens of millions is a disgraceful legacy of Roe. Americans have waited 47 years for the horror of abortion to be brought to an end. If not now, when?”
The brief warns, “Roe established a class of individuals – unborn children – who were deemed by this court to be undeserving of protection under the Constitution. There is absolutely no constitutional support for such a position. Indeed, its Preamble demonstrates that the Constitution was intended to ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity’ – not to sacrifice and destroy our posterity.”
In fact, the original Roe decision pointed out that if the humanity of the unborn was established, as science now makes obvious but something the justices at that time said wasn’t proven, the abortion case would collapse because the unborn should be protected under the Constitution.
The brief warns the abortion industry’s culture of death could be greatly expanded should the decision stand.
“If the word ‘liberty’ grants a license to a woman to abort her preborn child for any reason or for no reason, what are the limits of that rule? A neonate is not ‘viable’ under the standard … in the sense that it can survive on its own. Neither is an infant. Neither is an elderly person near the end of his or her life or a disabled person.
“Although today this may sound impossible, before Roe, it was impossible to believe that a woman had a constitutional right to kill her unborn child. Who is to say what the limits of such a free-floating interpretative method truly are?”
It charges that the opinion, in fact, was based on nothing more than the “personal feelings” of the judges there at the time.
“The Roe court’s focus on the interests of pregnant women while refusing to consider the interests of unborn children, distorted the analysis and led, predictably, to an unbalanced conclusion. The Roe decision gives every indication that the court’s analysis did not lead it to its conclusion, but its conclusion dictated its analysis. The resulting decision to establish a pregnant woman’s right to terminate the life of her unborn child has left the court open to questioning of its neutrality and fairness, which is ultimately destructive of the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.”
There’s also no reason to uphold such a flawed precedent, the brief said.
“The institutional integrity of the court depends on public confidence in the perceived fairness and evenhandedness of its decisions. Refusing to overrule Roe and Casey carries the certainty of the public losing even further respect for the institution — from the 44 percent disapproval rating just announced by Gallup.4 A willingness to admit when the court is fundamentally wrong, and a restoration of the appropriate balance between the court and the states — as well as between the court and Congress — is necessary to restore that confidence.”
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.