Abortion - A Non-Existent Right

 

Justin Smith tackles SCOTUS Judicial error rulings since 1973 and how actual science gives SCOTUS an opportunity for legal redemption.

 

JRH 12/4/21

I need your generosity in 2021 PLEASE GIVE via - credit cards, check cards & debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Or if not donating you can support by getting in the Coffee from home business earning yourself extra cash – OR just buy some TASTE GOOD healthy coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

************************

Abortion - A Non-Existent Right

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Threatens Roe v. Wade

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/3/2021 11:14 AM

 

Murdering the Unborn Child is a practice as old as mankind itself, but that doesn't make it a moral practice or something acceptable with any real justification. The Democratic Party's century long advocacy and support for Baby-Murder doesn't make it more palatable, since their reasons have long been based on premises beyond immoral, as they have yet to be able to acknowledge that an embryo is a living being, while they also have pulled a non-existent "right to abortion" from thin air, largely due to a January 22nd 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade. 

 

For all familiar with Christianity, in Jeremiah 1:5, God tells us all:

 

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to the nations."

 

On December 1st 2021, America witnessed arguments between the pro-death abortionists and the pro-life defenders of the Unborn Child unfold before the Supreme Court and a fight between evil and good, in the [JRH] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case initiated in the wake of a Mississippi law that bans all abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. It's a case that threatens the continuation of Roe v. Wade as "settled law", since a good bit of the conversation questioned the notion of stare decisis or precedent. Several cases of the Court reversing itself were scrutinized by attorneys and Justices alike, and the Court appears to be preparing to make a major change in its abortion jurisprudence, after several hours of closing arguments from the State of Mississippi and the Biden regime.

 

[Blog Editor: More Pro-Life slanted info on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization:

 

o   Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: An Opportunity to Correct a Grave Error; By Sarah Perry and Thomas Jipping; The Heritage Foundation; 11/17/21

 

o   What They Are Saying about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; By Carrie Campbell Severino; National Review; 11/30/21

 

o   Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; By Attorneys Kristen Waggoner & Denise Harle; Alliance Defending Freedom; 12/1/21]

 

The Mississippi law stands in direct contravention of the 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey cases and Supreme Court precedents that prohibited any state ban on abortion until fetal viability, which was generally accepted as somewhere between 23 and 24 weeks.

 

One should note at this point, as some background information on Planned Parenthood, that during the 1920s, Margaret Sanger embraced eugenics as a nurse associated with the Industrial Workers of the World and [JRH] Emma Goldman, who was one of the founders of the American Communist Party and a mentor to [JRH] Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. Sanger went on to found the [JRH] American Birth Control League in 1925, which eventually became Planned Parenthood [Blog Editor: Interesting note – The link I associated here has the “American Birth Control League” founded in 1921. Yet in some quick comparisons I also saw it founded in 1919 & 1923. Evidently there seems to be some uncertainty on a founding date.]; she was also a devout racist who created the Negro Project in 1939 with a mission to sterilize unsuspecting black women and those she viewed as undesirables of society. In Sanger's own words, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

 

[Blog Editor: The Left has become so consumed with power and control that they LIE about their racist past (among other lies). I discovered in looking some of this stuff, the Left has made blatant effort to white-wash (funny term, right?) Sanger’s racist & eugenics (cough neo-Nazi) past. Here are some tidbits culminating with the white-wash exposé:

 

o   Margaret Sanger and Her Racist Views; By Elizabeth; Oath of God Ministries; no date

 

o   The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger's proto-Nazism; By Ellis Washington; Renew America; 12/2/15

 

o   Margaret Sanger’s Racism Still Defended – OpEd; By William Donohue; Eurasia Review; 8/27/20

 

o   Fact Checkers Claimed Margaret Sanger Wasn’t Racist But Planned Parenthood Just Admitted It’s True; By Mary Margaret Olohan; LifeNews.com; 4/21/21 1:12PM 

 

o   21 Eye-Opening Quotes From Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger; By TFP Student Action; LifeNews.com; 11/27/21 4:01PM] 

 

Due to the absence of any right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution and the many false assumptions and arbitrary reasoning used by the Court to establish said "right", in all subsequent challenges that came before the Court over the decades, attorneys had to argue precedent since nothing exists in the actual body of the Constitution or any original understanding of it that suggested any right to an abortion. And unlike all other of our country's healthcare questions, abortion has been removed, by and large, from any real due process of "the law" being applied under any existing U.S. code, essentially amounting to a construct of nine Supreme Court Justices that circumvented the will of the people in fifty states and the principles of our Founders.

 

If we're going to debate precedents, shouldn't we be reviewing our previous two centuries, when virtually every single state had laws banning all abortions?

 

A majority of America's states had laws that criminalized abortion, by 1858. By the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, approximately three-quarters of our states had such statutes, and by 1883, every single state had laws that banned abortion. And regardless of how one interprets the 14th Amendment, while it may not protect the UnBorn Child from being aborted, it also most certainly doesn't state that any woman has any right to murder her UnBorn Child in the womb. 

 

When Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. Solicitor General, fell back on the 14th Amendment argument, and as reported by Katie Pavlich at Townhall, Justice Clarence Thomas, normally one of the more quiet and reserved Justices, made the following observations and ended with a question, saying:

 

"If we are talking about the 2nd Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about the 4th Amendment, I know what we're talking about, because it's written. It's there. What specifically is right here [in the 14th Amendment] that we're talking about?"

 

When something isn't specifically addressed by the Constitution, it must be left to the States, the people, to decide. And by the early 1970s, they were holding referendum elections and deciding, by in large, in favor of life which sparked the sort of judicial activism that led to Roe v. Wade and the subsequent defense of its lawless nature as "settled law".

 

Nine Black Robes ruling that an embryo isn't a "person" doesn't make it so, unless one is a blathering idiot and a science denier, since life begins at conception. The measure of that UnBorn Child's viability outside the womb is equally as capricious and arbitrary as the Court's ruling that abortion is a right, especially after a 21 week old infant was helped to survive outside the womb last year, by remarkable advances in modern medicine. Life is life, and a life so innocent should be protected above all else. 

 

And neither can anyone reasonably view the arguments of Julie Rikelman, attorney for the Center for Reproduction Rights, as any sound basis for going forward with Baby Murder as America's status quo, as she stated:

 

"Two generations have now relied on this right. And one out of every four women makes the decision to end a pregnancy."

 

So what is this? The "Everybody is doing it, so it must be right" perspective?

 

Rikelman also argued that Mississippi's case was very similar to cases that have been previously rejected, stating Casey as her proof, and this prompted Justice Samuel Alito, a Conservative, to school the pro-death legal team by way of a question he posed to Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General, asking:

 

"Is it your argument that a case can never be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong?” 

 

Prelogar replied:

 

"I think that, at the very least, the state would have to come forward with some kind of materially changed circumstance or some kind of materially new argument, and Mississippi hasn't done so in this case."

 

Shredding her argument, Alito then asked:

 

"So suppose Plessy v. Ferguson (an 1896 decision that affirmed the constitutionality of racial segregation laws) was reargued in 1897, so nothing had changed. Would it not be sufficient to say that was an egregiously wrong decision on the day it was handed down and now it should be overruled?"

 

In part, the Fifth Amendment was also used as a tool to enable women to receive abortions, as the Justices also focused on women's right to privacy and "due process". But what about due process under the law for the UnBorn Child?

 

Scott Stewart, Mississippi's Solicitor General, told the Court that the legality of abortion was still an unsettled matter in America, forty-eight years after Roe. The primary premise he asserted was that matters of this importance affecting all Americans, in one way or another, must be settled by democratically elected state legislatures and the people with the most at stake, rather than the Court.

 

The State of Mississippi's legal brief presented to the Court even went so far as to state that Roe v. Wade and Casey should be overturned on the basis of stare decisis, as it notes these cases departure from all our nation's prior history and separation from Constitutional principles and a longstanding dedication to the preservation of life. At one point, it states:

 

"Abortion is fundamentally different from any right this Court has ever endorsed. No other right involves, as abortion does, 'the purposeful termination of a potential life' ... Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution." 

 

Shortly after Roe was delivered by the Court, John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion and a Harvard professor, wrote:

 

"Roe is bad ... because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

 

Much of the precedence for our legal system emanates from English Common Law, and as such, one would be remiss if one didn't mention that many early U.S. lawyers such as Louis Brandeis and Sam Warren relied heavily on English Common Law in 1890, when they wrote the Right to Privacy. They revealed that William Blackstone, an English legal scholar whose words shaped our Declaration of Independence, declared specific rights for the UnBorn Child, writing:

 

"Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit." (from page 105 of Black's Law Dictionary) [Blog Editor: Black’s Law has gone through many editions since the original. Here’s a LINK to a PDF of the 6^th Edition with a 1990 copyright. Here’s a link which cites the Latin and English used by Justin.]

 

An amicus brief filed with the Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization by Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, an obstetrician, Dr. Colleen Malloy, a neonatologist, and Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, a diagnostic radiologist, detail how far science has advanced in dealing with pregnancies, revealing that viability now stands at 21 weeks of gestation, and also noting at 12 weeks, the little human in the womb can feel "immediate and unreflective pain". They further explain that the science now makes it possible to intervene and treat UnBorn Children in utero as early as 15 weeks gestation, and even at such an early stage, the human form of the child in the womb is undeniable.

 

The three female physicians suggest that since Casey doesn't account for the very human aspects of the UnBorn Child and the pro-death camp is so reliant on stare decisis where Casey is concerned, the Conservative majority has the blueprints before it to reject viability as the primary motivating factor, as they consider their ruling on Dobbs. Only five Justices are needed to find that science and facts trump stare decisis, and the Supreme Court cannot hope to ever again hold any semblance of institutional integrity, if it persists in its denial of the humanity of the UnBorn Child.  

 

During his testimony on May 17th 2012, Dr. Anthony Levatino told the House Judiciary Committee reviewing the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) about saving a woman's life by "terminating her pregnancy" through a Cesarean section, that saved her life and allowed her and her baby to thrive afterwards. He noted that during his time at Albany Medical Center, he performed hundreds of similar procedures, and in all those cases, he didn't have to kill one single UnBorn Child. (Dr. Levatino retells his story here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaHQTdjo7Y.)

 

[Youtube VIDEO: Re-Air - Dr. Anthony Levatino / Former Abortionist Shares His Story

 

Posted by Faytene Show

Premiered Aug 4, 2020

 

Donate to help us make more shows - https://www.faytene.tv/donate

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

This show is a re-air of a program we did earlier this year with Dr. Anthony Levatino. Dr. Levatino performed over 1000 abortions before having a personal epiphany. In this interview he shares his journey and about the reality of what abortion is. Also joined in this interview is Ruth Shaw, the director of the National Campus Life Coalition.]

 

The Leftist pro-death camp can tout Baby-Murder as being in the interest of women's health all they wish, but the facts and their own contradictions belie their assertions. Most pro-abortion state laws, such as one finds in New York and Virginia, allow non-physicians to perform abortions, as they dismiss research that reveals the physical and psychological damage women incur from abortions. They refuse to inform women about the risks associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of adoption. These death cultists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of "choice". 

 

The Baby-Murderers and the advocates of the Democratic Party's Death Cult are hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are liberal enough to betray traditional America once more and vote with Leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Steven Breyer to keep America's fundamental transformation on track, especially since Roberts has difficulty in doing anything that moves America too fast, even when the best path right in front of him is the most righteous path. But, it's also worth recalling Roberts once wrote that,  "We cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right", in connection to the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

 

Roe's Constitutional basis is already being questioned by several Justices who take exception with the all-encompassing privacy penumbra seen in Roe. Kavanaugh, ever ready to follow wherever Roberts goes, is also on the record in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) that any precedent "grievously or egregiously wrong" must not be maintained by the Court. 

 

In April 2020, as he agreed with the Court's majority ruling, Kavanaugh wrote:

 

"The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents."

 

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only Justice who has made no secret about his conviction that both Roe v. Wade and Casey should be overturned. It remains to be seen how many of his colleagues will join him in his honorable and righteous stand. 

 

Most of America would welcome the reversal of the pro-abortion 1973 Supreme Court ruling that arbitrarily passed out a "right" to abortion for all women that wasn't under its authority to grant, but the Far Left in the shadows of the halls of Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party Communists are already crying bloody-murder from the steps of the Supreme Court over their perception of an attack on their cherished "long standing" legal precedent. However, they are quick to dismiss the two centuries of pro-life attitudes in America prior to Roe v. Wade, and since 1973, they have influenced an era in which over sixty-two million Baby-Murders (abortions) were rationalized and sanctioned through Leftist, activist courts and under a cloak of protection of "the law."

 

Life is sacred and begins at conception, therefore the ethical question cannot logically reconcile the evil of an abortion of an "unwanted" pregnancy with the Hippocratic Oath of medical doctors or, more importantly, God's Law. And yet, many who call themselves "pro-choice" oppose proposed rules that would show a woman an ultrasound of her UnBorn Child before a planned abortion; they oppose a 48 hour waiting period for this procedure. These pro-death advocates do not want parents of an underage girl notified before an abortion, and they argue that an embryo is not a person. Rather than pro-choice, these evil folks are pro-death.

 

This is the issue nationwide. Far too many Americans are not willing to acknowledge that sex between a man and a woman is a sacred matter ordained by God. They are not willing to admit that the product of such unions -- a little vulnerable live baby -- cannot and must not be taken away on a whim, due to the inconvenience it may cause them. 

 

It is accurate to state that a newly created human being is human because it has its own very specific and unique DNA. Life begins at conception and any action that ends a human life is indisputably a homicide, no matter how funny, obtuse or disingenuous one attempts to be on the topic. UnBorn Children are not property or parasites to be discarded at will. 

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Embedded source links are by Justin Smith except by the indication “JRH.” Bold text indicates Editorials agreement. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Baby Murder Act

Abortion is a horrendous act of murder perpetrated on an unborn life PRIMARILY for the purpose preventing unwanted pregnancies from promiscuous consensual sex.

The only potential caveat for an acceptable abortion is to save the life of the mother for whatever the legitimate medical reason in existence. There are other caveats that are a matter controversy among Pro-Lifers related to rape, incest, physical/mental disabilities and/or other unborn maladies I can’t think of. BUT those controversial matters for abortion are miniscule compared to the downright genocidal taking of unborn life for the sake of unwanted pregnancy due to promiscuous copulation (92% in the USA).

Pro-Life Biblical Perspective:

o   Bible Verses about Abortion

o   ‘But, the Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion!’

With this in mind, Justin Smith addresses New York State’s full term genocidal unborn baby-murder act.

JRH 1/28/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************

The Baby Murder Act

New York Mandates a Culture of Death

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/27/2019 8:13 PM

Abortion is nothing less than the murder of Unborn Children, Babies, and on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, January 22nd 1973, the Empire State of New York has just passed its abominable Baby Murder Act, the "Reproductive Health Act", that attempts to give legitimacy to this abominable, heinous and horrific practice, by calling abortion a "fundamental right". This act stands in direct contravention of the virtues and principles, that built America, often referenced as a "shining City on the Hill", and there are consequences for these actions, which are unacceptable under any set of circumstances. We must protect the lives of the Unborn Children.

New York was already doing a fine job of slaughtering the innocent Unborn, under its "archaic abortion law, as described by the secular Leftist media, as it aborted twice the number of babies as the national average -- one baby aborted for every two that were born with more black babies murdered in the womb than brought to birth. Only a blood lust could demand such a heinous law be expanded.

Shortly after passage, Sarah [née] Ragle Weddington, an attorney who represented Norma "Jane Roe" McCorvey in the original case, excitedly exclaimed, "To see New York pass a bill so that right is protected is just a dream come true." Curiously and ironically, one never hears the Leftstream media mention that Norma McCorvey became Pro-Life in 1995 and dedicated her life to opposing Roe v Wade.

In celebration of their demonic act and their hate for life, that allows a baby to be murdered the very day up to its birth, a full 9 months, Governor Andrew Cuomo and his fellow Democrats lit the One World Trade Center in a bright neon pink light, as they delighted and cheered along with their mainstream media tools.

One World Trade Ctr lit pink to honor NY Abortion Law (flickr-governorandrewcuomo - Fox News)

Must I state the obvious. Taking the lives of a babies right up until the day they could be delivered alive IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. IT IS PURE EVIL.

Charlie Daniels tweeted: "The NY legislature has created a new Auschwitz dedicated to the execution of a whole segment of defenseless citizens. Satan is smiling."

As Lifesite noted: "Declaring abortion a 'fundamental right' opens the door to invalidating 'any limits on abortion' and 'mandating' that everyone take part in the culture of death ... and [having] the effect of 'authorizing infanticide' ...".

Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of the Albany Diocese observed that the law appears to be a step toward criminalizing anyone who does not subscribe to the Democratic Party's Anti-Life platform. How will this illegitimate "law" affect Pro-Life nurses and doctors and health facilities and maternity services? The Good Bishop offered: "If abortion is deemed a fundamental right ... I shudder to think of the consequences this law will wreak ... Will being pro-life one day be a hate-crime in the State of New York?"

Although all abortions are wrong, I and many other Americans would offer this caveat. Young women surviving rape and mothers with young children at home and truly endangered by their pregnancy can be forgiven, for choosing this path. I would hope and pray that in the former case, a woman might be strong enough to want her baby, or at least let the baby live and place it for adoption.

The moral bankruptcy of New York's new law is fully exposed in the last phrase of this sentence: "An abortion may be performed by a licensed ... practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

Does this mean that any woman can now have an abortion if the day before delivery of her baby she feels that she can't handle the stress of raising a child?

In New York, it was already the law that doctors and nurse practitioners could abort babies through nine months to save a mother's life. "Health" has been added to this act only to ensure that women have a greater access to abortion, should they desire one for any reason. Based on political jargon, the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with "reproductive health" and it fundamentally devalues the life of any Unborn Child.

It's the child's mere existence, not the pregnancy, that poses the alleged health risk. The pregnancy can be concluded by delivering the baby alive, rather than murdering him or her. One should be able to see the glaring sophistry in the argument for abortion.  

Lifesite expands the discussion with this explanation: "The bill is also part of a broader trend of left-wing states codifying a 'right' to abortion in anticipation of a future Supreme Court ruling that could reverse Roe, restoring states' ability to ban abortion themselves and automatically banning it in the handful of states with pre-Roe bans still on the books."

If You've never heard any former abortionists speak on the topic, the baby is injected with a poison directly into his little skull or body, and his developed nervous system allows him to feel and suffer through an agonizing and painful death. After writhing and suffering in agony, sometimes it is discovered at the next day ultrasound that the baby hasn't died, and he is injected again. He's soon delivered dead by the woman who has no claim to the word "mother". [Blog Editor: Various graphic methods of abortion]

Abortion has never been about "reproductive health", rights or freedom. It is about self-centered feminist women who want to walk away "clean" from an unwanted pregnancy just as some worthless men can physically walk away. However, the women are the ones left to deal with the physical and mental trauma of miscarriage and abortion, and even though many women think abortion is crucial to their cause, they and their children are the ones most hurt by atrociously immoral bills, like New York's.

America must not allow loosely constructed laws that contain "health" undefined to deceptively use a multitude of reasons, like mental and emotional stability, age and family situation as factors in any abortion. If such is now the case, a depressed woman who loses her job and her boyfriend or husband at nine months pregnant can now easily get an abortion in New York, if she so desires. No problem. This cannot stand.

The One World Trade Center should have been lit up Blood Red.

By Justin O Smith 

________________________

Heads up: Justin submits posts at numerous websites & blogs with suggested titles for Editors to choose from. There is an excellent chance you will run into the same post with a different title or editing format.

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text embraced brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Here’s Hoping Capital Crime Case Ends Roe v. Wade

John R. Houk

© October 20, 2018

Jessie Phillips murdered Erica Droze Phillips & unborn baby in 2009

The Personhood argument against baby-killing abortion has arisen in Alabama within the merits of a capital crime of a husband murdering his pregnant wife:

In the case, [Jesse] Phillips was charged with the murders of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to be executed. The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child’s death because the child was not a “person.” (WND article below)

This is a State Supreme Court ruling and not a Federal Court ruling. I will be surprised if the Alabama State Supreme Court does not make an appearance in Federal Court. Think of the irony as a bunch of Leftist baby-killing supporters rage that a convicted murderer was not only convicted of murdering his wife but also convicted of killing his unborn child.

I can hardly wait to see how the Left/Democrats spin an anti-Personhood argument when a person removes TWO lives from among the living. Why did Jessie Phillips kill his wife Erica Phillips?

… A jury in June 2012 found him guilty and put him on death row for the slaying, which took place at Lakeside Car Wash on Alabama 69 in Guntersville.

Court documents indicate that Phillips became angry because his wife had not changed the wet diaper of their young daughter. He subsequently shot Erica Phillips in the back of the head, leaving her body lying in one of the car wash bays; the 23-year-old died early the next morning at Huntsville Hospital.

Both of the couple's children were present when the shooting occurred, as were two of Erica Phillips' brothers. Jessie Phillips fled the scene without the children.

He later turned himself in for the murder and, in interviews with police, admitted knowing his wife was eight weeks pregnant at the time he shot her.  (Alabama man sentenced to death for 2nd time in pregnant wife's murder; By Crystal Bonvillian; AL.com; 2/12/16)

There is absolutely zero doubt that Jessie Phillips is a heinous murderer. The Left is stuck with the conundrum of defending a wife-killer to perpetuate the heinous ideology that a woman has more rights over her body than an unborn life has a right to live.

The success of Personhood essentially boils down to this question: When does a life in a woman’s womb become a person?

The divide then becomes religious faith versus secularism. A secularist-minded person will look at biological criteria while a person of religious faith – particularly Christian faith – examines the criteria that life proceeds from God Almighty.

As to faith here is some valid thinking from the “Founding Charter for Personhood Alliance”:

WHEREAS, the Bible affirms the personhood, sanctity, dignity and value of every human being from the moment of our individual creation, as evidenced by the doctrine of Imago Dei and through the marital union of a man and woman (Gen 1:26-28), our being known by God even before being formed in the womb (Jer 1:5), the incarnation of Christ (Luke 1-2), and the sacrifice of Christ to atone for the sins of humanity and restore fellowship between God and man (Rom. 5:12-21);

The significant Biblical Scriptures in the above Personhood Charter are in order of usage are:

Genesis 1:26-28 (NKJV)

²⁶ Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over ^[a]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ²⁷ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ²⁸ Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that ^[b]moves on the earth.”

Jeremiah 1:4-5 (NKJV)

⁴ Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

⁵ “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified^[a] you;
I ^[b]ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

[It stands to reason if God formed the Prophet Jeremiah in his mother’s womb, He formed YOU in your mother’s womb and He formed the entire human race in their mother’s womb.]

Luke Chapter one and two are the birth of Jesus Christ story. I am not going to quote the entirety of those two chapters. But to signify the importance of God in the birth process, here are some select quotes:

Luke 1: 26-33, 35; 2: 10-12, 15-16 (NKJV)

1 ²⁶ Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ²⁷ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; ^[a]blessed are you among women!”

²⁹ But ^[b]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. ³⁰ Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ³¹ And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. ³² He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. ³³ And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

³⁵ And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

2 ¹⁰ Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. ¹¹ For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. ¹² And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a ^[a]manger.”

¹⁵ So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” ¹⁶ And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.

Romans 5: 12-21 (NKJV)

¹² Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— ¹³ (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. ¹⁵ But the free gift is not like the ^[a]offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. ¹⁶ And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many ^[b]offenses resulted in justification. ¹⁷ For if by the one man’s ^[c]offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

¹⁸ Therefore, as through ^[d]one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one^[e] Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. ¹⁹ For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

²⁰ Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, ²¹ so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I gotta tell ya … For me all arguments using biology to determine life before birth are irrelevant in favor of the Redemptive view of God for humankind through Jesus Christ the Savior.

Jessie Phillips took two lives and is being held accountable according to the laws of the State of Alabama. BUT those lives removed from the living - Erica Droze Phillips and her unborn child – were and are certified by God Almighty.

JRH 10/20/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider

chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

********************

STATE SUPREME COURT: ROE V. WADE 'PATENTLY ILLOGICAL'

Shocking decision declares unborn baby is 'a person'

By Bob Unruh

October 19, 2018

WND

Alabama State Justice Tom Parker

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that an unborn baby is a “person” under the law, and, consequently, the death of that person can be punished with execution.

Further, in a special concurrence, Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that created a “right” to abortion.

“I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade,” he said. “I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.”

Parker affirmed the Alabama court’s rationale that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.”

He asserted Roe v. Wade is “without historical or constitutional support, carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn child’s inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion.”

“This judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law … and common law of the states,” Parker said.

He noted the Alabama court’s opinion stated the “obvious truth that unborn children are people and thus entitled to the full protection of the law” in its decision to reject Jessie Phillips’ arguments “that the unborn child he murdered, Baby Doe, was not a ‘person’ under Alabama law.”

In the case, Phillips was charged with the murders of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to be executed. The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child’s death because the child was not a “person.”

The fault in the Roe decision was cited by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion.

He said the justices didn’t have the scientific evidence to determine if an unborn baby is a person, but “personhood” is the foundation of the case.

Blackmun wrote: “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The Alabama ruling is not the only one to point out to the U.S. Supreme Court that Roe was wrongly decided.

In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Alabama law banning the gruesome, second-trimester abortion procedure in which limbs are removed from a baby’s body in the womb.

At the time, Chief Judge Ed Carnes lamented in his opinion that he was bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent to rule against the state, writing that “dismemberment” is the best description of the procedure, which clinically is known as dilation and extraction.

“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” he wrote, calling the high court’s history of abortion rulings an “aberration” of constitutional law.

And Judge Joel Dubina wrote separately to express his agreement with Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in Gonzales v. Carhart in which Thomas wrote, “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence,” including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, “has no basis in the Constitution.”

“The problem I have, as noted in the Chief Judge’s opinion, is that I am not on the Supreme Court, and as a federal appellate judge, I am bound by my oath to follow all of the Supreme Court’s precedents, whether I agree with them or not,” Dubina wrote.

The opinion had no use for the politically correct language of “choice” and “women’s rights.”

“This case involves a method of abortion that is clinically referred to as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). Or dismemberment abortion, as the state less clinically calls it. That name is more accurate because the method involves tearing apart and extracting piece-by-piece from the uterus what was until then a living unborn child,” he wrote.

And a year ago, eight members of the Alabama Supreme Court revived a wrongful death claim against a physician even though the life that was lost was that of a “pre-viable” unborn child.

That ruling set the state in direct conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Alabama judges at the time criticized the Roe decision’s “incoherent standard” of viability.

The newest opinion notes that Alabama law states an unborn child is a person under the state’s intentional murder statute.

According to Liberty Counsel, “Justice Parker wrote separately to emphasize how broadly and consistently the law and judicial decisions in Alabama and around the country protect the rights of unborn children. This, Justice Parker said, contrasts with ‘the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade.'”

In his opinion, Parker called on the Supreme Court to act: “It is my hope and prayer that the United States Supreme Court will take note of the crescendoing chorus of the laws of the states in which unborn children are given full legal protection and allow the states to recognize and defend the inalienable right to life possessed by every unborn child, even when that right must trump the ‘right’ of a woman to obtain an abortion.”

He said that by ensuring broad legal protections for unborn children, including under Alabama’s capital murder statutes, “we affirm once again that unborn children are persons with value and dignity equal to that of all persons.”

“There is a growing chorus of voices urging the Supreme Court to overrule its abortion decisions,” said Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver. “The Supreme Court has created a constitutional aberration and caused incalculable harm by its abortion decisions. In 1992, Justice Kennedy voted with the majority to overrule Roe v. Wade, and then flipped his vote 30 days before the opinion was released to uphold Roe. It is time to correct course and overrule this horrible chapter in American and Supreme Court history.”

He continued: “We applaud Justice Tom Parker in calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and once again protect precious children, women, and families. Abortion is simply a euphemism created by activists to soften what it really is: the murder of innocent unborn children.

“We must stop this human genocide. We must demand that the Supreme Court undo the horrendous ruling and make the womb a safe place again in America. As we hear about the horrible descriptions of the dismemberment of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, every breathing person naturally shutters. Yet, every day in America, helpless, preborn children are dismembered while they are still alive. We too must shutter at this horrible act and stop it.”

Parker is currently an associate justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and is running for the position of chief justice. Parker won the primary election on June 5, 2018.

In his new concurrence, Parker said a “person is a person, regardless of age, physical development, or location.”

“Baby Doe had just as much a right to life as did [mother] Erica Phillips. … Phillips was sentenced to death for the murder of two persons; Erica and Baby Doe were equally persons.”

He added: “In spite of voluminous state laws recognizing that the lives of unborn children are increasingly entitled to full legal protection, the isolated Roe exception stubbornly endures. … Some liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court adamantly defend the isolated Roe exception. I have written extensively explaining why the Roe exception lacks legal foundation and is patently illogical.”

The ruling, he said, “stands as an indictment against the United States Supreme Court.”

The only way it can continue, he said, is if the U.S. Supreme Court justices “insist, against all scientific evidence and reason, that unborn children are not human.”

________________________

Here’s Hoping Capital Crime Case Ends Roe v. Wade

John R. Houk

© October 20, 2018

______________________

STATE SUPREME COURT: ROE V. WADE 'PATENTLY ILLOGICAL'

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy's Replacement

Justin Smith makes an excellent case for President Trump to nominate a Pro-Life and Constitutional Originalist to SCOTUS. Justin specifically posits the nomination to be Appellate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

JRH 7/9/18

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

********************

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy's Replacement

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/8/2018 8:41 PM

Under our God-given rights, Our Founders saw the law as a tool to preserve liberty and freedom for all, through the Western and Judeo-Christian principles and virtues that made the U.S. Constitution and our bicameral system possible. They did not see liberty under the law as anybody's right to do anything, regardless of its reprehensible nature, and they certainly never intended to place America on a path where evil is called "good", as the nation witnessed with the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v Wade. The Court was never supposed to be the final arbiter of law, becoming a tyrannical entity that seemingly answers to no one and places itself above all.

In this sense and in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy's impending retirement, President Trump is wrong not to question potential Supreme Court nominees regarding their position on Roe v Wade and whether or not they would overturn it, if given the opportunity. Any reluctance to do so is from a political concern and ignores the fact that Roe v Wade was given the force of de facto law by a Supreme Court that enforced its will and did not judge the case on any actual constitution basis, since the so-called "right" to abortion did not exist in the Constitution and they manufactured it out of thin air. 

President Trump suggested that it somehow wouldn't be "appropriate" to question his nominees on this. So, is murdering over 60 million unborn children since 1973 appropriate?

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), an overt progressive, stated that she could not support any candidate who might be willing to overturn the despicable Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. She suggested that many years of "precedents" must somehow be viewed as "set law" as she parroted Democrat talking points and the likes of progressive Democrat activist Justices, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

What about the hundreds of years of precedents that upheld the sanctity of life and protected life well prior to Roe V Wade?

Any person who views overturning the activist decision of Roe v Wade as a "big mistake is essentially willing to usurp an unborn child's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They are either horribly ignorant or terribly callous in turning a blind-eye to the murder of a human person, committed in each abortion; but in either case, they are taking the position that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.

If Supreme Court precedents are set law, why isn't Plessy v Ferguson and Lum v Rice still the law of the land? If these cases had not been overturned, America would still have segregation under the "law". These were overturned by a later Court, because the Supreme Court is fallible.

However, ever since Marbury v Madison (1803) and the Court's assumption that it was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, America has seen the Supreme Court define its own power, and increasingly and regularly, America has seen the Supreme Court usurp power and act as if it is dominant over Congress and the Office of the President, which is contrary to the Founders' Original Intent. Marbury has been cited by the Court to invalidate laws in over 200 cases, even though Marbury v Madison does not contain any actual assertion that the Court has exclusive authority to bind other parts of government.

Thomas Paine, one of our Founders, once noted, "All power exercised over a nation ... must be either delegated, or assumed ... All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation."

The rights Thomas Jefferson lists in the Declaration of Independence are certainly open to interpretation, but according to our Founders, their metaphysical basis, found in nature itself, is not. However, activist Justices have now long impressed their notions of what they believe the Constitution should say, upon all America. As a result, America was handed rulings that removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, pornography on demand, abortion and homosexual "marriage".

Some call retiring Justice Kennedy a "moderate" because he voted along conservative lines fifty-seven percent of the time, but how anyone reaches this conclusion is disturbing, especially once one looks at some major cases. Kennedy voted too often to advance the deviant and perverted homosexual agenda in America, although this segment of society represents only a mere 3 to 4 percent of the population. Kennedy knocked down Texas's sodomy laws, the upheld Roe v Wade twice and he voted in favor of homosexual "marriage", aiding in making a mockery of traditional marriage and the only true meaning of marriage -- the union between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony before God. This is not a "conservative" or a "moderate".

By the time this is released, Pres. Trump will have made his pick for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that he chooses Amy Coney Barrett, the 46 year old Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,  who is a pro-life Catholic mother of seven and a strong Constitutionalist. Ms. Barrett was also awarded the top student award from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

President Trump cannot deny, that these illiberal anti-Constitution proponents of abortion stand firmly opposed to the conservative philosophy, which is the protector of America's founding ideas, those ideas of life and liberty so many American patriots have died defending. As such, President Trump and Congress should unabashedly state that they will move to place a pro-life nominee on the Supreme Court, such as Amy Barrett, because modern Justices no longer seem capable of just determining the constitutionality of any particular law, in accordance with the Founders' Original Intent; rather, they seek to wield the Supreme Court like a club to meet the demands of whatever political agenda at hand at any given moment, during a time that the anti-Constitution progressive Democrats have certainly made no secret that defending baby murder is an integral part of their fight to accept or reject any candidate for the Supreme Court.

As Christians, we are bound to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to reject the lies and the evil of an abortion industry that murders the image of God approximately 1.5 million times a year in America. No one should ever call such a heinous crime a "right". 

And in the meantime, America must put forth the necessary effort and work to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court, as the admonishment and prophesy of Brutus, one of the great anti-Federalists guiding the Constitution's ratification debate, has become our present-day reality: "The Supreme Court under this Constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul ... There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under Heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of Heaven itself.” [Italic bold by Editor]

America must stop un-elected Supreme Court Justices from arbitrarily exercising power over the entire nation, our federal and state governments, in a manner that abrogates part of the Constitution itself, as it sets forth to define good and evil from the high court. And America must stop the reprehensible abortion industry and overturn Roe v Wade, and right the historic wrong that has perpetrated the worst mass murder in history, upon a nation that purportedly seeks to be blessed by God.

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith