SUPREME COURT Ruling On Abortion – May Be Overturned

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!

Migrant Birthright?

Trump wants to overturn the automatic, unconditional birthright status that the US has offered to illegal immigrants in the past.  And of course the media is all a frenzied because, well, that’s what the media does any more – they get angry. 

So, a bit of common denominator sense:

Countries that have no such unconditional status include: China, Japan, Europe, Africa (with one exception), Middle East, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Columbia, Malaysia, Chile, Peru, and Greenland.   In other words – most of the world, with the exception of Canada and the US.

Why?

Maybe because they are ‘nationalist’ and believe that citizenship is not an entitlement, but something earned because of your desire to work and support your newly adopted country.  Maybe because they believe that the hard earned benefits that working citizens reap should not be shared with those who hate the country and have no desire to work or support its laws.  Or maybe it’s because the country has no desire to support passels of illegal children who don’t even attempt to gain rightful immigration status.

It is always odd when Human Rights are applied in a fashion that is hypocritical at best, and destructive at worst.  In fact Europe and Australia have some of the most stringent laws in place regarding gaining citizenship.  No one complains.

So Deutsche Weil took it upon itself to chastise Trump’s stance on unconditional birthright status by highlighting ‘all the other countries’ which mimic the US, including:  Honduras, Ecquador, Guatemala, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico and Canada.  In other words, all of North America and partial countries within South America adhere to similar unconditional status.    Germany’s law states that the birthright of children of illegal aliens is only granted when the unlawful aliens apply for naturalization.

Why is the wolf lecturing the Eagle?  Because it furthers an agenda of polarizing a viewpoint without explaining or analyzing the data and facts.

The 14thAmendment to our Constitution references naturalization and legal immigrants who have a permanent residence in the US and are thus subject to US jurisdiction.  An illegal by definition of being illegal is not subject to our jurisdiction – which is why we ‘deport them’ instead of putting them in jail for their crimes!

As Germany tries to tout the benefits of immigration they site ‘a study’ which indicates that “migrants from within the EU have contributed to Germany’s economic growth”.  A.   the migrants they reference are European, and B.  they claim that all the migrants in this study emigrated when they were young, highly trained, well educated and looking for jobs, and C. their contribution to GDP growth was estimated at .2% per year.

We can imagine if these were well educated, highly skilled laborers, and the entire estimated contribution was .2% – what does an uneducated, unskilled migrant contribute? COST.

The study was relatively small covering a period from 2011 thru 2014.

Skilled craftsmen make up 1/8 of all of Germany’s jobs, and there is currently a tremendous shortage of workers, and a 40% drop in those wanting to train, hence Germany’s Merkel thought to fill the void with immigrants from Eritrea, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Sudan.   Bring in millions and hope they can learn German and a skilled trade without bombing, looting and raping, was the plan.   Except that training takes 3 – 3 ½ years, and completion of an exam – in German.

So now, if you need a plumber, the wait time is roughly 3 months…

Part of the problem when trying to assess the percentage of immigrants who have found employment, is that statistics provided by Germany include EU migrants who are highly skilled.  So the statistic is relatively worthless.

Making the matter more complicated is the fact that a part of the Syria brokering deal was that all refugees be returned to their country.  Thus the pool is reduced.

So Germany instituted a plan to train those who already had command of the language and threw over $300 million toward helping refugees obtain jobs with a projected 100,000 employed.  Merkel recently nixed the project after less than 25,000 gained employment.

How many refugees are in Germany?

No one really knows because they aren’t calculated until they are processed and the backlog for processing can be years.  In addition, migrants that are illegal aren’t tallied.  A fair guestimate would be about 2.5 million, with Germany hailing the success rate of 25,000 employed – 1%.

And the cost?

By 2020, the annual cost is projected to be over $20 billion, which is most likely rather low.  Maybe if they spent that money encouraging Germans to procreate again they wouldn’t have to give away Germany just as Sweden has given away it’s country, Norway has given away its country…

Birthright means someone who ‘wants’ to be in this country, who would defend this country, who values the freedoms this country provides, and someone who does not leach off benefits.  If someone is born in this country to illegal parents, they can attempt to gain naturalization – if they wanted to.

But like everything else, the caravan is supposed to take our attention away from the voter fraud that is hailed by the democrats who liberally give illegals identities so they can vote illegally and usher in more Democrats who have no intention of giving them status or jobs unless they need someone to take care of their children… but even then, they prefer nanny’s from Sweden…

If there was a door to door solicitation for money to pay for all the illegals in the US, for managing the caravans, for replacing facilities that they burn down and destroy, how much would the Democrats raise?  What if instead of raking in donations for Hillary – or her Party of Progressives – the entire funds were given back to the US government to pay for the illegal immigrants that the Liberals defend?

In essence it would reduce our taxes – a tax rebate in the making!  Clinton alone raised $1.2 billion…