INSTALLMENT 5 (Last Installment): Why the Supreme Court Decision in Roe Versus Wade Was Legally Incorrect and Unconstitutional

If you have not read the earlier installments, here's Installment 1, here's Installment 2 , here's Installment 3 and here is Installment 4.

INSTALLMENT 5

Throughout the years, many court decisions have held that the 14^th Amendment contains a right to privacy by an individual over his or her actions, though it is disputed just how far this extends.  In Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court held that this right to privacy was broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chose.  However, in all the cases the Court cited as evidence of this right, only a few came close to having anything to do with abortion and it becomes obvious, with only a little explanation, that they were a bad fit for the 1973 case.  Most were cases completely unrelated to abortion and involved phone taps, the right of parents to direct the education of their children, minors selling goods, and other things that only established the existence of a right to privacy, but proved nothing about the right to the termination of a pregnancy being contained therein.  However, while the Court failed to convincingly prove its position, there is definite evidence that an unborn child’s right to life had recognized preference over the right to privacy.  In the Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford case (1891), the question at hand was whether a court could “order a woman suing a railway company for injuries she suffered to submit to a surgical examination”.  The Court held that such an intrusion of privacy was forbidden, except “to ascertain whether a woman convicted of a capital crime was quick with child…in order to guard against the taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the mother”^. In conclusion, the Court ignored the clear evidence of the right of a child to life, and was forced, because of lack of proof for its position, to present information that was not even related to the point it was trying to make.

Despite all the blunders of the Court legally and Constitutionally in Roe versus Wade, perhaps the worst was the complete lack of discussion in the critical area of natural law and what it says about abortion.  Natural law is an essential basis when dealing with any issue of morality, for it is defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia as, “the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator". In other words, every man’s soul has been endowed with an intrinsic knowledge of what is morally right and wrong according to the eternal laws of God, so one can intuitively know what is just.  If the Court had looked at natural law, it would have understood that abortion and its decision were violating several important principles.  To begin with, natural law teaches that one does not take the life of another living human being.  Although the Court believed that life did not truly begin until birth, they were still toying, however, with the “potentiality” of life before birth and according to St. Thomas Aquinas, “if a man could be probably alive or probably dead, you can’t take the chance of burying him unless he is certainly dead. This meant that since it was questionable as to when life began, therefore the Court could not legalize the killing of the unborn because there was potential human life.  In addition to this, natural law holds that one does not interrupt a normal function of life, pregnancy, except for an extremely serious reason.  That an unborn child can be killed simply because it may not be wanted is obviously not a serious enough reason to make abortion in accord with the natural law.

 Truly, it is highly evident that the Supreme Court was not legally correct or in accord with the intentions of the Constitution in its ruling of Roe versus Wade.  Because the Court did not rule from a neutral position, but twisted facts out of context, was selective with the evidence, ignored key points of view, and knowingly evaded the clear truth, it rendered its judgment subject to intense criticism.  Had the Court honestly, critically, and thoroughly examined all sides of the issue, its decision would have been much different than it was.  Sadly, for some, the Supreme Court’s monumental decision on that fateful day in 1973 will be seen as the indisputable law of the land, but it is hoped that these articles (based on a paper I wrote for a class) have placed doubt in some minds as to the legality and fairness of the trial that the most vulnerable citizens of the United States of America received. ---- Timothy J.

INSTALLMENT 4: Why the Supreme Court Decision in Roe Versus Wade Was Legally Incorrect and Unconstitutional

FINALLY ... Installment 4 of Tim J.'s article on the infamous Roe v. Wade decision.  If you have not read the earlier installments, here's Installment 1, here's Installment 2 and here is Installment 3.  Prepare to be edified!

INSTALLMENT 4:

After blatantly skipping over the framers’ intent, the Supreme Court investigated the issue of whether the unborn were considered people according to the use of the word ‘person” in the Constitution, and ultimately decided that they were not.  Because “the Constitution does not define “person” in so many words”, the Court was forced to piece together a definition based on the many uses of the word throughout the document, a process that was doomed to failure since the Court had not bothered to discover what the original intent of the framers was.  In searching for the word “person”, the Court found most of the uses of the word in the qualifications for holding a public office, and concluded that since these uses applied only after birth, the unborn were not people according to the Constitution.  Although these qualifications for public office would ban the unborn, they also would deny any born person who could not meet the requirements for age, residency, and citizenship.  Surely, the Court would not withdraw the rights of personhood from any citizen simply for not meeting these qualifications, but yet this was exactly what the Supreme Court did in the case of the unborn.  By holding that the unborn were not people under the Constitution, the Court went against what John Marshall, a previous Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had ruled in Gibbons versus Ogden in 1824, which was that “the terms in the Constitution must be interpreted expansively, not restrictively”.  Thus, it is only too clear that the Court’s laughable approach to the Constitutional issue of personhood was indicative of the fact that the Court had already made its decision regardless of the evidence.

When the Supreme Court examined the Constitution, it focused largely on the 14^th Amendment, which has a clause that states, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or happiness without the due process of law.”  After little deliberation, the Court took the position that the 14^th Amendment banned the unborn child from the rights enjoyed under this amendment by people already born.  However, this stance was based only on a selective collection of previous court decisions and the Court’s own judgment, not on the all-important intent of the framers of the 14^th Amendment.  Around the time of the drafting of the amendment in 1868, there were several influential facts and court cases that suggest that the unborn was indeed intended to have rights.  For instance, in the 1860’s, five U.S. territories enacted anti-abortion laws.  Since these territories were not yet states, Congress needed to approve these laws, and so, in order for them to pass, many of the Congressmen who would eventually write the 14^th Amendment must have voted in their favor.  Also, in 1873, just five years after the enactment of the 14^th Amendment, the District of Columbia recognized abortion as illegal.  Again, one can see that Congress must have had a pro-life mentality, for it had full jurisdiction in the area of the District of Columbia’s criminal law.  Thus, it is apparent that the Court was incorrect in their claim that the 14^th Amendment barred the unborn from the basic human right to life, when the prevailing attitude of even the country’s political leaders in the 1860’s can be reasonably ascertained to have been for extending rights to a fetus.

Our Conference OCT 16th - Y-LIFE and Holy Apostles Life League

Email ylifeprovita@gmail.com for more details ...

Happy, Glorious, Blessed Easter, Everyone!

We have the next installment to Tim's article on the injustice and wrongness of Roe versus Wade, which we will post this week, but we want to wish everyone a most glorious Eastertide!  (Is it us, or did Lent seem kind of long this year ...)  Oh well, Happy Easter and don't forget, Sunday is Divine Mercy Sunday.  If anyone from St. Therese parish in Granby is reading this, don't forget to return your baby bottles from the baby bottle fundraiser for St. Gerard's Center this weekend.

The Annunciation - Major Feast Day, Especially for the Newly-Conceived

Today is the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord, and we have posted this beautiful painting by the artist John Collier.  This day is the Feast Day for all pregnant mothers, newly conceived babies AND babies in the womb at any stage of development.  Remember, after the Annunciation, Mary went to see her older cousin, Elizabeth, who was about six months pregnant, and St. John the Baptist "leapt" in Elizabeth's womb at the arrival of Mary, carrying the Savior of the World in-utero as the tiniest of pre-born babies.

Pray especially hard this day for abortion-minded women and their babies, who are at terrible risk  And celebrate, too, because this is also the Feast of the Incarnation, when the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ... as a child in the womb.

PRO-LIFE YOUTH CONFERENCE THIS WEEKEND!!!

Some of us are going to this:

Youth 4 Life Conference

March 27, 2010

St. Michael Center, Baltic, CT

4-8 p.m.

The Academy of the Holy Family’s Teens of Pro-Life Club (TOP-Life Club) and the Connecticut Right to Life Corporation are sponsoring the new and improved 2nd annual Youth 4 Life pro-life conference on Saturday, March 27, 2010, from 4-8 pm at the Academy of the Holy Family's St. Michael Center on School Hill Road in Baltic. In a new format, there will be live testimonies, breakout sessions, live band, film presentation, Mass and confession, music and pizza & …!

Meal is included. Requested donation is $10. Register by mailed form or by calling 860-822-8241.  Questions? Ask for Sr. Marie-André or e-mail:

prolifespanish@ahfbaltic.org

Bring your friends and come enjoy one of the biggest pro-life youth events in Eastern Connecticut!

Picketing and Breakfast Meeting

This morning we picketed in front of Hartford Gyn from 7 a.m. until 8:20 or so.  It's always really sad, especially when the mother does not want to go while her boyfriend or mother or aunt or gym teacher or whatever has her by the elbow.  Today we had what appeared the opposite ... the boyfriend wanted to stay and talk with the sidewalk counselor.  We prayed (because that's the best way to witness while the sidewalk counselor does his or her thing.)


After, we went to Ashley's for breakfast and had a meeting, because a lot of members showed up to picket today.  We'll be posting about upcoming events and projects when we get the notes sorted out ... more on the tag sale, the Conference and a possible celebration for St. Gerard's to celebrate the arrival of the ultrasound! And bake sales.  Actually, the only baked stuff we have ever sold has been at tag sales and bazaars.  The humble bake sale can make a lot of money for the effort.



It's really gorgeous here in Connecticut today ... really sad to think that some of those mothers will remember an early spring day as the day their baby died. Or maybe they'll be like some of the speakers we've had ... not really remembering at all, but sort of having this overwhelming sadness that no one ever talks about. And maybe some of them won't have an abortion today.  Please God.