Home » Posts tagged 'Roe v. Wade'
Tag Archives: Roe v. Wade
Is Substantive Due Process Anything? What About This Court Arguing for a Substantive Right to Life? The War Begins
The founding fathers of the United States, the authors of the Constitution, also ratified by the states, wrote to limit the powers of the federal government. They listed the powers and reserved to the states those they didn’t. They included a bill of rights. This guaranteed to everyone in the entire nation those rights. The Constitution imparts all the powers of the federal government and all the rights guaranteed to all the people of the United States.
Are there other rights in the Constitution of the United States other than those enumerated in the bill of rights and its other amendments? The history of Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution both from loose and strict constructionists says, “Yes,” there are other rights. They call those substantive rights. They relate to life, liberty, and property, those three appearing only in the amendments, but assumed or implied rights from the history and tradition of the United States.
In Dobbs, the Supreme Court decided no right to abortion occurred in the Constitution, overturning Roe. In the 213 pages of Dobbs, the term “substantive” occurs 39 times.
Justice Alito Argues
Justice Alito writes the first usage of “substantive” on page 2 in this sentence:
The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.
Casey argued that a liberty or right to abortion did exist as a substantive right in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In its next usage also on page 2, Alito defines substantive rights as “those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” Alito then on page 19 argues for the majority in Dobbs that the fourteenth amendment protects two categories of rights, first those “guaranteed by the first eight Amendments.” Alito continues on page 20:
The second category—which is the one in question here—comprises a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 3).
Alito explains on verse 22:
In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). “Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.
Alito goes on to write (p. 41) that, based upon the “specific practices of states,” abortion did not fall within even the “outer limits” of these so-called substantive rights. Alito makes this important statement then on page 44:
[D]espite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy.
Alito does not reject the concept of substantive rights in the Constitution, but he writes for the majority, especially four Justices in the majority, that Roe failed on that important precedent.
Justice Thomas Concurs
Then Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion (p. 118):
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”).
Furthermore, Thomas writes (p. 118):
Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.
Thomas argues that no substantive due process rights even exist. The various Supreme Courts invented these out of whole cloth.
As a result, Justice Thomas writes (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
As an example, the Supreme Court argued in Obergefell a substantive due process right of same sex marriage based upon the fourteenth amendment. Thomas concludes (p. 123):
[I]n future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.).
Apparently substantive rights themselves exist in the constitution in addition to stated rights, but not substantive due process rights.
The Substantive Right to Life in the Constitution
What are substantive rights?
Substantive rights are rights to life, liberty, and property. Do we not agree that the Constitution guarantees the substantive right to life. Should the Supreme Court not have gone further with its ruling? Should it not have argued that abortion is in fact a violation of the right to life found in the Constitution of the United States? That is an argument based upon the Constitution and deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States.
I am sure that no state allowed abortion when the fourteenth amendment was ratified. States provided an unborn child a right to life. At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. Less evidence existed then than does now that life begins at conception. An ultrasound detects a fetal heartbeat at 6 1/2 to 7 weeks.
Some ask why Kavanaugh disappoints Trump? President Trump sees fear in Kavanaugh. The Democrats in the confirmation hearing framed him as a criminal, accusing him of sexual harassment when he was 17 years old. They intimidated him. He famously broke down and cried in that hearing. If Trump sees weakness, a language or decision that reflects that weakness, he questions it, using what I call, Trump-speak. Whatever pressure comes from the other side, he counteracts from his side. I understand it. If you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Kavanaugh wrote the following in his concurring opinion (pp. 125-128):
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve. . . . Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. . . . This Court therefore does not possess the authority either to declare a constitutional right to abortion or to declare a constitutional prohibition of abortion.
Is the Constitution not pro-life? Is it really neutral on the matter of life? Does the Constitution not protect life as a substantive right? On the other hand, Kavanaugh sees same sex marriage as a substantive right. He implies that the Constitution is not neutral on same sex marriage, when he writes (p. 133):
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Along the lines of substantive rights in the constitution, consider if Kavanaugh applied his Roe test to Obergefell by writing the following: On the question of same sex marriage, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-sex marriage nor anti-same sex marriage. He doesn’t see a substantive right to life, but he does see a substantive right to same sex marriage. Can this be true? Kavanaugh reads like a lie.
Dobbs was but a first battle in a war for life in this country. In one sense, it is a pretext for the actual war that must occur. We must all start by telling the truth, not only about abortion itself, but about the Dobbs decision. We can all celebrate what it did do, but we also must be realistic about what it did not.
Dobbs didn’t do away with abortion. The United States aborted almost a million babies last year. Everyone of those can still happen if someone wants. This war is far from over.
The Essence of the Bondage Mentality or Worldview, Witnessed in Old Testament Israel and Reflected in the Democrat Party in the United States
The Israelites lived in bondage in Egypt. In this bondage, they ate a preferred variety of food without a threat of immediate death. If they went along, they could go along. However, God wanted Israel to leave the bondage of Egypt to the liberty of the land that He would give them. He raised up and then used Moses and Aaron to lead them out. God also hardened Pharoah’s heart to do his will. The Apostle Paul explains in Romans 9:17-18:
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Deuteronomy 4:20 communicates a similar purpose: “But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.” A very short while after Israel left Egypt, the people wanted back in Egypt in bondage. They could escape Egypt, but they could not escape their bondage mentality or worldview. They wanted back in bondage as seen in many passages in the Old Testament. Reacting to lesser food, they said (Numbers 11:1-7):
1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
Israel said in Numbers 20:5, “And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” They spoke another version in Numbers 21:5, “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.” They would rather stay in bondage, because liberty meant manna, while bondage apparently brought fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick.
A second group of passages repeat the words, “die in the wilderness” (Exodus 14, Numbers 21, 26), as in Exodus 14:11-12:
11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?
12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
If the people of Israel trusted God, would they die in the wilderness? It seemed like it to them. They made decisions based on this worldview or mentality. You might call the bondage mindsight also a crybaby one, because everytime Israel chose bondage, they cried or complained like a baby to God.
Also reflecting the bondage or crybaby worldview or mentality was Israel’s desire for a king. God warned against having a king. 1 Samuel 8:1-18 (click to see this passage, while reading here) records what God thinks. Israel expressed the desire in verse 5: “And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Their bondage mentality or worldview guided their desire. It displeased the Lord (verses 6-8) and it still does.
Thomas Ross writes about 1 Samuel 8 and chronicles the given reasons God opposes the bondage worldview, what he calls “big government” mentality. He exposes the following arguments:
- Loss of freedom of association (verses 10-13)
- Loss of freedom in a military draft (verses 11-12) [in contrast to God’s will, Deuteronomy 20:1-9]
- Loss of freedom of occupation (verses 11-13)
- Weakening of the private sector for the public sector (verses 11-13)
- Loss of Freedom of Property (verses 14-16)
- Loss of freedom and protection for physical property through “redistribution” (verse 14)
- Loss of freedom and protection for growth in wealth and income through 10% taxation (verse 15)
- Loss of freedom and protection for human “property” (verse 16)
In the end, Israel would regret its bondage or crybaby mentality or worldview (verse 18). Thomas Ross lists reasons in the text for taking this false view of the world:
- Rejection of the Word of God (verse 19)
- A Desire to Follow the Ungodly (verse 20a)
- Abdication of Responsibility (verse 20b)
- Faithlessness (verse 20a and c)
When Israel finally went into captivity, Israel also wanted to stay, similarly to returning to Egypt. Daniel begrudges this and God prophesies the chastisement (Daniel 9-12).
The Democrat Party of the United States reflects the bondage and crybaby mentality. I call it bondage rather than slave even though the latter works, if expounded. The Bible says everyone is a slave, either to righteousness or unrighteousness, so it seems unescapable. The Democrats keep people in bondage to government, which is bondage to unrighteousness according to God. Slavery to God isn’t bondage, but liberty. With liberty comes responsibility.
Going back to Egypt meant dependence on Egypt. Israel could rest in the world system, following along with its ways, never breaking from its position or direction. The Democrats sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They encourage everyone to live a temporal life.
Late in his life, Booker T. Washington visited Washington DC from Tuskegee and on his way, he witnessed and then criticized African Americans for moving to and crowding near Washington DC to obtain their means to live. This became Booker T. Washington’s debate with socialist African American leader W.E.B. Dubois, offering different trajectories for the future. Dubois’s view won out. This became the strategy of the Democrat Party, especially represented by Woodrow Wilson and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Victor David Hansen on June 29 wrote a piece titled “The Cry Baby Leftist Mind.” This agrees with what I’m writing here. The overturning of Roe v. Wade brought out further crying. What will women do now? How will they survive? Democrat California says, “We will pay for your abortion.” Even Republican governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota reacts by saying, “We must do what we can to help women in crisis,” as a beginning comment. She further said, “We will continue helping women navigate pregnancies they did not plan.” That is better than paying for the abortion, but it panders to a bondage and crybaby mindset.
God does not approve of the bondage and crybaby mindset. It will not succeed in a nation. People will not be better. They will be worse. Let us oppose it together.
An Analysis of Supreme Court Overturn of Roe and the Lie of the Dissenting Opinion
Early Friday my phone notified me the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It brought great happiness, comparable to the 2016 election. I knew it was happening, but it got off my radar, so when I saw it, it was adulation. Praise God! I looked for a copy of the decision, downloaded the pdf, and started to read. My mind gobbled Alito’s text with delight and refreshment. Outside of the Bible, this doesn’t happen much.
I celebrate Samuel Alito and the four other justices. They showed great courage. They did something that I will never forget, a highlight of my life. I was eleven years old at the Roe v. Wade decision and did not even know it happened. I’ve lived almost my entire life under its evil effects.
Even as I say that, the most courageous was Clarence Thomas. I separate him from the entire group with his concurring opinion. Same sex marriage is not in the constitution either. He wrote (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.”
Obergefell decided same sex marriage. The court passed that on the same basis as Roe. On the other hand, Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion, to distinguish himself, wrote:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in . . . . Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
I hope he reconsiders this point if same sex marriage comes to the court again.
The decision showed three basic opinions, represented by a majority of five, minority of three, and then Chief Justice Roberts alone. The majority said nothing personal about the morality of abortion. The five wrote the Constitution says nothing about abortion and contains no right to abortion therein. The Constitution neither commends or condemns abortion. Roe v. Wade found a right where there was none. It was unconstitutional.
Roberts upheld the Mississippi law as constitutional based upon a generous interpretation of Casey. Even though the arguments required to choose one way or the other, he chose silence on an abortion right. Roberts kicked the abortion can down the road, siding neither way on its constitutionality, attempting, it seems, to please both sides.
The minority of three wrote:
Today, The Court . . . says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.
The Court did not say that. These three Supreme Court justices lied. The Court said nothing about whether a woman has a right to abortion. It said the Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion. The Supreme Court does not decide what rights people have or do not have. It does decide constitutional rights. Is a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution? The majority said, no.
Right now a state cannot force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term. She can travel to another state with legal abortion and get one. Everyone knows this. The governor of California says it will give sanctuary to pregnant women who want to kill their babies.
As you and I read opinions such as written by the minority, perhaps you ask, “What is a woman?” Or, “Who is ‘her’?” The three liberal judges function according to outdated language and meaning. Doesn’t the patriarchy force its bias and its meaning of existence and reality through gendered language?
Feminists could support the Dobbs decision. It establishes the existence of women. For the court to force women to have their babies, there must be women. What does that mean for transgender rights? The Casey decision argued in 1992 a constitutional “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” These words followed Justice Anthony Kennedy’s now very famous sentence from the Casey opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Yes, Kennedy was apparently one of the conservative faction of justices, seen as a moderate, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was no conservative in the spirit of William Buckley.
Donald Trump did a better job choosing justices than Ronald Reagan, who also chose Sandra Day O’Connor. Take a moment to thank Donald J. Trump. He picked three of these justices in the majority. Three for three. Let’s hear it for Trump. True conservatives should give Trump credit, but many won’t.
Mitt Romney tweeted out support of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe. Could we trust him to have made the choices Trump did? I don’t think so, but he could impeach Trump for an appropriate call to the Ukrainian president.
The Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe was no thanks to Anti-Trumpers, who did not vote for Trump in 2016. Most are further to blame for the horrific consequences of 2020. This includes John Piper and David French. I concur with this Mollie Hemingway answer to French.
So thankful your anti-Trumpist obsession and damaged ego failed to keep the country from this moment. If you had gotten your way, this day would have never happened. You should repent for your continual slanders against those who had far more courage and wisdom.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 24, 2022
George Bush selected David Souter and George W. Bush did Chief Justice Roberts. Thankfully the latter also picked Samuel Alito, the author of Dobbs. This decision would not have happened under Romney or McCain and didn’t under the Bushes.
Liberty Magazine writes the following about Anthony Kennedy’s words in Casey, the infamous abortion decision after Roe:
Though sounding more like a discourse on Spinozean metaphysics than on constitutional jurisprudence, this sentence has reached the level of notoriety among judicial and political conservatives that “separate but equal” once did among civil libertarians, or “material substratum” did among post-Enlightenment idealists.
No U.S. Supreme Court dictum in decades has faced such vilification as has poor Justice Kennedy’s 28 words. Robert Bork called the phrase indicative of “New Age jurisprudence”; William Bennett derided it as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”: George Will said it was “gaseously” written; Michael Uhlman labeled it a “thing of almost infinite plasticity”; the editors of First Things called it the “notorious mystery passage”; and on and on.
Kennedy’s take on liberty fits very nicely with a naturalist’s view of the world, turning language and meaning into one’s personal Gumby toy.
If I could brag about any one aspect of a reading of Dobbs by Samuel Alito, it’s the return to objective, plain writing. He wrote like words meant something. No one can follow that sentence by Kennedy, but it allowed for the perverseness we see in modern culture. Your truth is your truth. Your liberty is your liberty. That’s not a baby, but a fetal, clump of cells.
The argument buttressing a right to abortion now undermines the definition of woman. Most of those out there protesting the decision could and should protest both sides of the decision. Both sides used oppressive and sexist language that uphold the patriarchy. The liberal side does it in a more subtle and insidious way, thereby causing even worse damage to the LGBTQIA agenda.
The new, correct word for mother, or its replacement, abandoning the former meaning of woman, is gestator. It’s obvious that this movement does not have everyone on the same page. Their gender is fluid and the movement itself is too. It’s changing and mutating so fast, it doesn’t have time to finish its handbook. This forces liberal judges to use the outdated terms like “woman” and “her.” You think I’m joking.
In a refreshing bit of honesty, unlike Roe and Casey, a gestator calling their self Sophie Lewis, in answer to Dobbs provides unmitigated clarity with her The Nation article: “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!” This entity (person, whatever) says: “Dishonest sugar-coating did not work. Let’s stop. It didn’t work. Let’s call it what it is, killing.” Another word I would use, that Sophie did not, is “murder.” So here we have it. Samuel Alito was clear and so was Sophie Lewis. Exhilarating truthfulness.
When you and I look at the protestors, they represent a profane culture. They wear their piercings, falsely colored hair, and they speak streams of expletives and destroy private and public property. This reflects the postmodern philosophy of Sartre, the French existentialist, who said that existence preceded essence. Humans have no essential nature, thus no morality besides what every man makes for himself. They don’t see themselves as accountable to God. The appearance of Dobbs protestors mirrors this existential philosophy aligned with the Anthony Kennedy statement in Casey. Their costumes are the uniform of their view of reality. They define their own essence.
Not everyone will say it like Sophie Lewis, but the reason why an assassin could show up at Justice Kavanaugh’s house after the leak of the Dobbs opinion was because “killing is OK.” That is also why a large majority of the media says little to nothing in opposition. Their liberty allows for murder. A baby may exist but cannot define his essence. A critical theory justifies killing as the essence of liberty.
Since the Supreme Court announced the ruling on Friday, plain language came to the surface. At a pro-abortion protest a man says, ala Sophie Lewis, he “loves killing babies.” Many women call it the best decision they ever made. Over ten years ago, I walked in a large pro-life march in San Francisco. Those protesting the march on the side of the road were the most vile and lewd people I’ve ever seen in my life. Their signs, language, and appearance were as bad as I’ve ever seen as an attempt to intimidate the march.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is so good. The war, however, is just begun. Hopefully, it won’t be a real war with real bullets, one that the Supreme Court provided the previous day with its concealed carry decision.
Recent Comments