Reasons why Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton should be reversed

Here are some of the reasons why the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should be reversed, even if support for legalized abortion-on-demand still exists within the United States:

  • Unborn children are already human beings at the stage at which they are aborted, and as such do have a right to life that should never have been taken away from them, even when the unborn child is unwanted by his or her mother or the life or health of the mother is in danger.
  • Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children and clearly did not intend to limit the right to life to persons who have been born. This position can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and in William Blackstone’s Commentaries.
  • Many Americans, including both opponents of legal abortion and supporters of legal abortion, do believe that abortion does constitute the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Some abortionists, abortion clinic owners, and abortion clinic employees have openly admitted that abortion does kill an unborn human being.
  • Some of the justices of the United States Supreme Court have admitted that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being in at least seven different cases involving the issue of abortion that were decided after Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and as a result human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings. Because human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings, they have a right to life that should be legally protected, even when they are unwanted by their own biological mothers.
  • There are fetal homicide laws in some states that allow persons who cause the death of an unborn child through an act of violence against his or her mother to be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child as well as the act of violence against his or her mother, but these fetal homicide laws currently do not apply to the deaths of unborn children that result from legal abortions.
  • The right of an unborn child to be protected against being illegally killed against the will of his or her mother is already recognized under fetal homicide laws that exist in some states, and unborn children are already considered to be human beings for the purposes of these fetal homicide laws.
  • The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was the basis for the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, was never intended to preclude states from prohibiting abortion.
  • The United States Supreme Court never declared a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion prior to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions on January 22, 1973, and this decision was made 104 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified.
  • 20 states had abortion bans that were enacted prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that remained into effect until abortion was legalized nationwide during all nine months of pregnancy on January 22, 1973 as the result of the Roe v. Wade decision. The 14th Amendment was never intended to affect the constitutionality of the laws prohibiting abortion that existed in these 20 states, even though these laws were determined to be unconstitutional under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.
  • The Roe v. Wade decision, along with its companion decision Doe v. Bolton, have effectively legalized abortion-on-demand for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy within the United States by including a “health of the mother” exception requirement in the Roe trimester framework and by including a broad definition of “health of the mother” in the Doe v. Bolton decision, even though at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices involved in these two decisions did not intend to legalize abortion-on-demand.
  • In the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, the United States Supreme Court has failed to explain how a ban on late-term abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” is unconstitutional when a ban on late-term abortions would be constitutionally permissible when the abortion is not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”.
  • The majority of Americans believe that abortion-on-demand should not be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have effectively made abortion-on-demand legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • The vast majority of abortions are not performed for the preservation of the life or health of the mother and are performed for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother.
  • Most pregnant women are not willing to have an abortion simply because the life or health of the mother would be in danger if the pregnancy is carried to term.
  • Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who was president of Planned Parenthood back in 1967 and who was a supporter of legalized abortion, admitted back then that “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
  • The United States Supreme Court had already decided in the Roe v. Wade case that “For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
  • The government has various legitimate governmental interests that justify banning abortions of unborn children who are viable outside of the womb, including but not limited to protecting the right to life of unborn children, protecting unborn children against fetal pain that might arise as a result of a late-term abortion, deterring the commission of infanticide, and protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result if unborn children are born alive as a result of an attempted late-term abortion. These very same governmental interests even justify banning late-term abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The inclusion of the requirement for an health of the mother exception in the Roe v. Wade ruling has led to the performance of medically unnecessary abortions and has resulted in actual harm to the health of women who have undergone abortions since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, the United States Supreme Court has already decided that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting … the life of the fetus that may become a child.”
  • The United States Supreme Court did uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion through the intact dilation and extraction technique under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in the Gonzales v. Carhart case, even though this ban did not include a health exception.
  • Over 57 million unborn babies have been killed as a result of abortion since January 22, 1973, when the United States decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade case, is now pro-life and supports the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision.
  • Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in the Doe v. Bolton case, was deprived of her due process rights in the Doe v. Bolton case because she was deprived of the opportunity to get her true story across before the United States Supreme Court.
  • The United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney who represented plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney who represented plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in arriving at its final decision in both of these cases on January 22, 1973.
  • The principles of American justice were violated in both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because of the United States Supreme Court’s reliance of false statements in both of these cases and because of the violation of Sandra Cano’s due process rights in Doe v. Bolton.
  • The fact that the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings were arrived at in violation of the principles of American justice necessitate the reversal of both of these rulings, even if there is still support for a legal right to abortion in the United States.
  • Some women who have undergone an abortion will eventually regret their decision to have an abortion.
  • Many post-abortive women have suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of a previous abortion, and there have even been cases where women have died from the complications of an abortion.
  • Many of the issues that Sarah Weddington raised in the Roe v. Wade case could have been addressed without legalizing abortion on demand.
  • Women are able to abstain from sexual activity, and the laws prohibiting rape, statutory rape, incest, sexual activity between teachers and students, sexual activity between correctional officers and inmates, and prostitution are dependent on the ability to abstain from sexual activity.
  • Every unplanned pregnancy that is not the result of forcible rape could have been avoided if the pregnant woman had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • Most of the abortions involve pregnancies that are the result of consensual sexual intercourse, and these pregnancies could have been avoided if the woman had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • Most of the women who are seeking an abortion are only willing to have an abortion if abortion is legal and readily available.
  • The demand for both legal abortion and illegal abortion can be reduced by providing women who are in crisis pregnancies with the support needed to carry their pregnancies to term and by providing assistance where necessary to ensure that children who are born as a result of a crisis pregnancy are taken care of.
  • Despite the popular claim that women will resort to back-alley abortions if abortion is made illegal again, the majority of women who are in crisis pregnancies will not resort to illegal abortions if abortion is outlawed.
  • There is strong support for enacting bans on so-called sex-selective abortion, and the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton is needed in order to enact such a ban because such a ban is not currently constitutionally permissible in the United States as a result of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.

Mississippi H.B. 1390 should be upheld

The State of Mississippi had enacted H.B. 1390 back in 2012 that requires the following:

  • That abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital
  • That abortionists are board certified or eligible in obstetrics and gynecology
  • That a staff member who is trained in CPR be present at the abortion clinic when the abortion clinic is open

Even though the enforcement of H.B. 1390 would force Mississippi’s only abortion clinic from closing, H.B. 1390 is in and of itself constitutionally permissible because its primary purpose is to protect women who undergo abortions against the dangers that would be involved. In fact, the United States Supreme Court had already ruled that “From the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health” in the Roe v. Wade case. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court had also ruled that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold H.B. 1390, even if it leads to the closing of the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi, for the following reasons:

  • H.B. 1390 does not prohibit new abortion providers that can comply with the requirements set forth in H.B. 1390 from operating abortion clinics in the state of Mississippi.
  • Pregnant women who are U.S. citizens currently have a right to obtain a legal abortion at an abortion clinic in any other state of the U.S. under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as a result of the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • Furthermore, pregnant women who are not U.S. citizens also have a legal right to obtain abortions in any other state of the U.S. under applicable state law.
  • 60 percent of Mississippi women who undergo abortions already obtain these abortions at out-of-state abortion clinics that are geographically closer to them than Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
  • Most abortion-seeking women who are in unplanned pregnancies are only willing to undergo abortions if it is legal, readily available, and easily accessible to them, and most of these same women are personally unwilling to undergo an abortion if it is illegal, not readily available, or not easily accessible.
  • The admitting privileges requirement provided under Mississippi H.B. 1390 ensures that continuity of medical care is there if a complication arises as a result of an abortion.
  • In addition to ensuring continuity of medical care, having admitting privileges at a local hospital can save the lives of patients who are suffering from life-threatening complications by ensuring that these patients are able to obtain emergency medical care immediately.
  • All three of the restrictions contained within H.B. 1390 are intended to minimize the dangers of abortion procedures on the life and health of the woman who is undergoing an abortion.
  • The State of Mississippi has a legitimate governmental interest in protecting the health of the women who are undergoing abortions at abortion clinics that are located in the state of Mississippi, and all three of the restrictions contained in H.B. 1390 further this legitimate governmental interest.
  • There are some constitutionally guaranteed rights that might require travel to another state or to Washington, D.C. in order to exercise that right, and the fact that a right is guaranteed by the United States Constitution does not necessarily require that one has to be able to exercise that right in his or her state of residence so long as the right can be exercised elsewhere in the United States. For example, a person who is appealing a federal criminal conviction might have to travel to an appellate court in another state or to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in order to appeal the conviction. As an another example, a woman who is seeking to undergo a late-term abortion might have to travel to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic that is willing to perform a late-term abortion.
  • Many of the women who are considering abortions choose to seek one because they do not want to take care of their unborn child after he or she is born, and many of these same women would choose to have the baby if they have easier access to pro-life prenatal care, they are provided with the support needed to have the baby, and they are provided with the support needed to take care of the baby if he or she is not given up for adoption.
  • H.B. 1390 would be clearly constitutionally permissible if Roe v. Wade is reversed or if an amendment to the United States Constitution that gives states the authority to prohibit abortions is ratified.

Even some abortionists openly admit that abortion kills a human being

Even though unborn human beings are often dehumanized by abortion rights advocates who frequently deny that a human embryo or a human fetus is an unborn baby, some supporters of legalized abortion openly admit that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being. Furthermore, there have been at least seven United States Supreme Court cases since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases where a justice of the United States Supreme Court has admitted that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being.

Here are some of the admissions made by abortionists, abortion clinic owners, and abortion clinic workers regarding the killing of unborn human children through abortion:

  • “Life begins at conception and what I do is murder.” (Judith Fetrow, Don’t Panic: The Sidewalk Counselor’s Guidebook)
  • “No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at anytime, unaware that they are ending a life.” (Dr. William Harrison, Why I Provide Abortions)
  • “Of course human life begins at conception.” (Aileen Klass)
  • “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.” (Dr. Curtis Boyd)
  • “[Abortion is] destruction of life.” (Dr. William Rashbaum, New York Times Magazine, April 7, 1977)
  • “This [abortion] is murder.” (Dr. Magda Denes, Daily News (Chicago), October 22, 1976)
  • “Women are not stupid … women have always known that there was a life there.” (Faye Wattleton, Donahue, May 15, 1989, Transcript #3288 NBC)
  • “It [abortion] is a form of killing. You’re ending a life.” (Ron Fitzsimmons, “An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About the Procedure”, New York Times, February 26, 1997)
  • “I see more of murder the further along they get. Although inside me I know it’s murder from the beginning.” (James Tunstead Burtechaell, C.S.C., Rachel Weeping: The Case Against Abortion (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row Publishers, 1982), 135-136)

Here are some of the admissions made by justices of the United States Supreme Court after the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases regarding the killing of unborn human children through abortion:

  • “Since the State has a compelling interest, sufficient to outweigh the mother’s desire to kill the fetus, when the ‘fetus . . . has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,’ Roe v. Wade, supra, at 163, the statute is constitutional.” (Justice Byron White, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth)
  • “Thus, the Pennsylvania law of criminal homicide requires scienter with respect to whether the physician’s actions will result in the death of the fetus.” (Justice Harry Blackmun, Colautti v. Franklin)
  • “Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.” (Justice Potter Stewart, Harris v. McRae)
  • “Appellant also contends that the prosecution failed to prove that his acts in fact caused the death of the fetus.” (Justice Lewis Powell, Simopoulos v. Virginia)
  • “If attempting to save the fetus imposes any additional risk of injury to the woman, she must be permitted to kill it.” (Justice Byron White, Thornburgh v. ACOG)
  • “The method of killing a human child – one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child – proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.” (Justice Antonin Scalia, Stenberg v. Carhart)
  • “To complete the abortion, doctors will commit an overt act that kills the partially delivered fetus.” (Justice Anthony Kennedy, Gonzales v. Carhart)

Why would a supporter of legalized abortion who has openly admitted that an abortion kills an unborn human being continue to support legalized abortion despite such an admission? One of the main reasons that one would continue to support abortion despite such an admission is that some women who are in unplanned pregnancies want to end their unplanned pregnancies through an abortion. In addition, abortionists and abortion clinic owners want to make as much money as they can from the performance of legal abortions, and keeping abortion legal is essential to achieving this goal.

Justice Harry Blackmun said the following regarding the beginning of human life in the opinion of the court in the Roe v. Wade case: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Despite what Justice Blackmun said during the Roe v. Wade case, there is clearly consensus that human life begins prior to birth, even by supporters of legal abortion. If human life begins prior to birth, then abortion-on-demand should not be legal during all nine months of pregnancy because any abortion that is performed after human life has begun must clearly constitute the killing of an innocent human being. Because human life does begin prior to birth, the United States Supreme Court needs to revisit the Roe v. Wade ruling and uphold prohibitions on late-term abortion after viability.