STATEMENT: “The Dobbs Arguments Revealed Why The Supreme Court Ruling on Abortion if faulted”.
The point is that government should NOT intervene in abortions at all and scrap the Dobb’s decision. It is not a Constitutional ‘right’, and the 14th Amendment, which is used to protect abortion, is arbitrarily applied.
Sotomayor has stated that an ‘unborn baby having any right is a religious view’ (note she said ‘baby’) And thus the term ‘viability’ is used as a means of determining whether abortion is murder or simply a ‘woman’s health right’. In terms of a literal definition, viability simply means ‘ability to survive’. Technically, a newborn cannot survive on its own. A toddler cannot survive on its own. And even a teen cannot survive on its own, they must all be suckled and cared for to survive and be – viable. Thus we developed an age of emancipation – 18.
In that definition, anyone under the age of 18 is NOT viable.
The government altered that definition to reference ‘in the womb’, and the Supreme Court upheld the change But even that viability has changed with increased surgical evolution. Did the government have the ability to recreate the definition? Did the Supreme Court have the right to hear the case? The likely answer is – NO.
When a person develops age related dementia or Alzheimers, are they viable? A child with Down Syndrome – are they viable? Their survival is dependent on being cared for and thus the answer to both is – NO.
While Roe vs Wade was a Supreme Court decision on abortion rights in 1973, it was based on Privacy, not murder. The decision also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life. But WAIT – only 3% of all abortions are a result of medical needs protecting the mother and unborn child, the remainder are for – convenience.
The Federal Government began funding Planned Parenthood in 1970 under Nixon’s “Family Planning Services”. The Law specified low income or uninsured families and specifically was enacted as a result of ‘uncontrolled population growth and its effects on economic growth’. The Bill was co-sponsored by Bush Sr. and addressed mass access to contraception and birth control aimed specifically at the impoverished population.
In 1994, the UN became involved with “The Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development.” Depopulation thus became a part of the UN’s first Sustainable Development Goals as outlined in 1994. The crux? Reproduction can impact environmental sustainability.
It was ALWAYS about – Targeted Depopulation and Eugenics.
Prenatal Life is defined as the ‘interval of life between conception and birth’. That would presuppose that an arbitrary, blanket ruling of abortion for all was NEVER intended and the use of that ruling to defend ALL abortions is without precedent.
It was in 1992 that the Supreme Court once again interjected in the abortion fray with Planned Parenthood vs Casey. Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter determined the ‘viability’ definition. O’Connor and Kennedy were nominated by Reagan and had already expressed their support for abortion. Souter was a Bush appointment. He was known to always side with the liberal wing. The ruling determined that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability.
In other words, the entire Abortion Rulings were based upon a flawed refurbished definition of viability and continually altered. WHY?
The Supreme Court Justice who rewrote the US Constitution to interpret Privacy as an abortion right within the 14th Amendment was Harry Blackburn. He was appointed by Nixon. Despite his status as a ‘republican’, he was considered one of the most liberal justices in history. His conservative status eroded between 1975 and 1980 when Blackburn began to vote in line with William Brennan. The liberals thoroughly embraced him and his viability definition stood.
He considered a woman’s womb to be her ‘private property’.
Today, that interpretation takes on additional new causes as we are being ‘mandated’ to forego that ‘private property’ right to vaccine mandates. You can’t allow one and mandate another under the same Constitutional auspice of ‘property rights’, ie, my body. Beyond that, it opens up the right of the Supreme Court to determine the term ‘viability’ at all. And how that might play in the other age and developmental disabilities I described above.
Could an adult thus choose to end the life of a parent, sibling, or child based on their nonviability?
Three quarters of all abortions are performed on women in poverty. Nearly 1/3 of abortions in the US are on black women. There are an estimated 73 million abortions performed worldwide – EACH YEAR ~WHO. The US accounts for 800,000 to 1 million annually despite having open access to contraception – the day-after pill – and sexual ‘choice’.
But the Legal Definition of Privacy and Property Rights is also on display: “Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property as long as they are accommodating the specific state’s private property laws.”
THUS, according to THE LAW, state laws take precedence. And the Supreme Court should have immediately dismissed the case.
The average cost of an abortion in the US is roughly $500-$1000. An annual outlay of $300,000,000 to $1 billion in the US alone. Average cost of an IUD is about $500. An IUD lasts for 10 years – meaning it would cost a max of 10% of the annual abortion costs. And for those with insurance it would cost – $ZERO. Completely derailing rape abortions as well.
So what is the REAL reason for supporting abortions vs contraception devices? MONEY. Simply another means for propping up an ‘industry’ with taxpayer funding going to Big Pharma in the guise of depopulation/eugenics!
4 thoughts on “SUPREME COURT Ruling On Abortion – May Be Overturned”
ghouls on parade.
Very well written and thought out Helena. There are however, conflicts between the Federal and State governments since the inception of our country. Also the Federal authority for conscription and the control over one’s person to send soldiers to their death. Federal crimes vs. State crimes that take priority.
So the first question to me is not “whos property is a woman’s womb”, but under what circumstance does any person surrender control over their body to the government?
Under what circumstances? Under the law of murder. When a woman bears a human, she is responsible for that human’s life – should she murder that life, she is thus subject to the laws of the government… As I stated, it is no different than subjecting a parent, sibling, or anyone to euthanasia via the severing of limbs, head, and scalp for the purpose of sale to Planned Parenthood … A paraplegic is ‘not viable’… should that person be subjected to the same torture?