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

While there are some individuals that believe that a woman should still have a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should both be reversed for the following reasons:

  • The United States Supreme Court was inconsistent on its answers to various legal questions relevant to the abortion issue in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • The United States Supreme Court should not refuse to reverse the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, despite the United States Supreme Court deciding that “Roe’s essential holding should be reaffirmed” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, for various reasons, including but not limited to the failure to properly address inconsistencies of both of these decisions, reliance on false statements in both of these cases, misinterpretation of the United States Constitution in both of these cases, and violations of the plaintiff’s rights in the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • The United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior decisions involving federal constitutional law, and as such should reverse Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton if the United States Constitution actually allows the prohibition of abortion in the United States.
  • The Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have deprived unborn children of the right to life prior to birth by concluding that unborn children are not legally considered to be persons prior to birth in Roe v. Wade and by allowing unborn children to be killed prior to birth through legal abortion.
  • Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children prior to birth, and the intent of our founding fathers can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries.
  • Abortion was illegal in most states at the time that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion.
  • The Doe v. Bolton case should never have been heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia or by the United States Supreme Court because the Doe v. Bolton case was filed against the will of the alleged plaintiff, because the attorney representing the plaintiff misrepresented the facts of the plaintiff’s pregnancy, and because the alleged plaintiff was denied the right to get her true story across before the United States Supreme Court.
  • The United States Supreme Court found various requirements imposed on abortions in Georgia prior to Doe v. Bolton to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton, including the requirement that abortions be performed in accredited hospitals, including the requirement that an abortion be approved by a hospital committee, and including the requirement that an abortion be approved by at least two other doctors.
  • While the United States Supreme Court found the procedural restrictions to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton on the grounds that these restrictions “unduly infringes on [the] physician’s right to practice [medicine],” procedural restrictions on abortion do not become unconstitutional on the grounds that they restrict a physician’s right to practice medicine because these laws restrict rights that are afforded only to licensed physicians, because the right of a licensed physician to practice medicine is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and because the United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld in later decisions that states can restrict abortion to physicians who are licensed to practice medicine.
  • The United States Supreme Court was wrong in declaring the procedural restrictions to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton because the rights of a pregnant woman are not always adequately safeguarded by an abortionist, because the procedural restrictions that were declared unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton actually do have a rational connection with a pregnant woman’s needs in some cases, because the United States Supreme Court found abortion to be fundamentally different from other medical procedures in Roe v. Wade and Harris v. McRae, and because the procedural restrictions do protect both pregnant women and unborn children from unnecessary abortions.
  • In the Doe v. Bolton decision, the United States Supreme Court had effectively enabled abortion on demand to be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy by broadly defining health of the mother as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
  • The United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement that abortion be legal “where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” during all nine months of pregnancy in the Roe v. Wade decision, even after viability.
  • The United States Supreme Court was clearly wrong in concluding that the United States Constitution requires that abortion be legal “where necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother” because the United States Constitution does not even mention health of the mother or a right to health-preserving measures, because the United States Constitution does not distinguish between abortions that are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother” and abortions that are not “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother”, and because the United States Supreme Court based this requirement on the existence of health exceptions in abortion statutes that were declared unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Even though the United States Supreme Court found that a woman has a right to decide “whether to bear or beget a child” and that this right is fundamental in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, there are many constitutionally permissible restrictions of this right, including but not limited to the prohibition of statutory rape, the prohibition of incestuous sexual relations, and restrictions on assisted reproductive procedures such as IVF and artificial insemination.
  • The prohibition of abortion usually does not deprive women who are or who have been pregnant of the ability to decide whether to bear additional children because women are usually able to avoid becoming pregnant again by choosing to completely abstain from sexual relations.
  • Although Justice Harry Blackmun did not agree that a pregnant woman “is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses” in Roe v. Wade and although Chief Justice Warren Burger said that “the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” the Roe v. Wade decision explicitly required abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy and effectively required abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • While the United States Supreme Court found that laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional on the grounds that these laws violated the privacy of pregnant women, the United States Supreme Court also decided in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy is not absolute and that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy is only protected against unwarranted governmental intrusion.
  • The fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy is not sufficient to make laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, even if the prohibition of abortion intrudes upon the woman’s right to privacy, because the intrusion into the privacy of a pregnant woman is clearly warranted when it comes to prohibiting abortion since abortion inherently involves the killing of an unborn human being and because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being.
  • Even though every person has a constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, there are many restrictions on an individual’s right to liberty that are constitutionally permissible in the United States.
  • A pregnant woman’s right to liberty does not necessarily make laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, even if the liberty of a pregnant woman is restricted by such laws, because the state has legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions, because laws that restrict the liberty of an individual are sometimes constitutionally permissible, and because the right to liberty in the 14th Amendment was not intended to prevent the prohibition of abortion.
  • Although the United States Supreme Court declared laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court did not have sufficient grounds to declare laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional because the constitutional rights that were the basis for a woman’s right to an abortion, including a woman’s right to privacy and liberty, are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government.
Advertisements

“Necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” does not mean the same thing as medically necessary

Even though most Americans believe that “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” means the same thing as medically necessary, an abortion that is not medically necessary can be legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” because the United States Supreme Court broadly defined “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother]” in the Doe v. Bolton case, which is the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The broad definition of health in the Doe v. Bolton decision, along with the requirement that abortions after viability be legal whenever they are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” has allowed abortion on demand to be effectively legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States because abortionists can legally claim that an abortion is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother”, even when the abortion is medically unnecessary.

There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for a medical procedure to be medically necessary, and some of the abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria set forth in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions are not considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies. Here are the criteria that have to be met for a medical procedure to be medically necessary:

  1. The procedure must be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice.
  2. The procedure is performed for the purposes of preventing the death of the patient or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  3. The procedure is clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration.
  4. The procedure is effective in preventing the death of the patient or in preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  5. The procedure is not primarily performed for the convenience of the patient, the physician, or other health care provider.
  6. The procedure is less expensive than an alternative which is at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s illness, injury or disease, or as to preventing the death of the patient.

Abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria established under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions might not be considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies for several reasons. First, such an abortion might not be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice. Second, most of the abortions that fall under the so-called “health of the mother exception” are performed for purposes other than and apart from preventing the death of the mother or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother.  Third, most abortions are primarily performed for the convenience of the mother, and as such would not fall under the medical necessity criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession. Finally, an abortion might be considered to be clinically inappropriate under the criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession, even though abortion providers often consider these abortions to be clinically appropriate.

Many Americans misunderstand the difference between an abortion that is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” as defined by the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and an abortion that is medically necessary under the definition accepted by most of the medical profession and by health insurance companies. This misunderstanding has allowed abortionists to legally perform medically unnecessary abortions during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States. In addition, this misunderstanding has enabled abortionists and abortion providers to file claims for abortions that are considered to be medically necessary by the abortion provider but would not be considered to be medically necessary by the health insurance provider. Moreover, some of the women who are seeking an abortion that is deemed to be “necessary, in appropriate judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” by an abortionist might not understand why such an abortion might not be covered under an health insurance policy that covers medically necessary abortions but does not cover elective abortions. Furthermore, this misunderstanding has allowed abortion providers to receive taxpayer funding that it should not have been entitled to by claiming that the abortions are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother.” Finally, if more individuals understood the difference between “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” and medically necessary, there would be increased support for prohibiting medically unnecessary abortions after viability and there would be decreased support for taxpayer funding of abortion providers.

The defunding of abortion providers is constitutionally permissible in the United States

The United States Supreme Court has already decided that taxpayer funding of abortion is not required under the United States Constitution in the Maher v. Roe, Williams v. Zbaraz, Harris v. McRae, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Rust v. Sullivan decisions. In addition, Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Treasury from funding abortion providers unless such funding is in accordance with appropriations made by the United States Congress.

Here are the conclusions that the United States Supreme Court arrived at with respect to taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States:

  • “The Equal Protection Clause does not require a State participating in the Medicaid program to pay the expenses incident to nontherapeutic abortions for indigent women simply because it has made a policy choice to pay expenses incident to childbirth” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “Financial need alone does not identify a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “A State is not required to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor normal childbirth” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “Since it is not unreasonable for a State to insist upon a prior showing of medical necessity to insure that its money is being spent only for authorized purposes, the District Court erred in invalidating the requirements of prior written request by the pregnant woman and prior authorization by the Department of Social Services for abortions” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment held in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 168, to include the freedom of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “Although Congress has opted to subsidize medically necessary services generally, but not certain medically necessary abortions, the fact remains that the Hyde Amendment leaves an indigent woman with at least the same range of choice in deciding whether to obtain a medically necessary abortion as she would have had if Congress had chosen to subsidize no health care costs at all” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “The Hyde Amendment does not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “The regulations do not violate a woman’s Fifth Amendment right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion” (Rust v. Sullivan).

The United States Senate should pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015 (S. 582), because the United States Supreme Court has already decided that the taxpayer defunding of abortion being proposed under this act is constitutionally permissible as a result of the Harris v. McRae and Rust v. Sullivan decisions. In addition, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers should not receive taxpayer funding because these providers are primarily in the business of performing abortions, because abortion is the primary source of revenue for these providers, because the business model of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers is fundamentally different from healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions, and because the majority of abortions that are performed at Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are clearly medically unnecessary to begin with.

While prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion providers have previously been determined to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the abortion industry might attempt to get these laws declared unconstitutional through the federal courts on the grounds that these laws would lead to the closure of many abortion clinics in the United States and on the grounds that many of the abortion-seeking women would be deprived of the ability to obtain a legal abortion in the United States as a result of the prohibition of taxpayer funding of abortion. Additionally, these abortion providers might make the argument that these laws were enacted as a means to prohibit abortion in the United States, despite the fact that these laws do not prohibit physicians from performing otherwise legal abortions that were not paid for with taxpayer money. Finally, the United States Supreme Court should continue to uphold laws that prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion, even in the face of attempts to get such laws declared unconstitutional by the abortion industry, because upholding these laws would respect established legal precedent on the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion, because the government has various legitimate interests that justify prohibiting the taxpayer funding of abortion, and because the United States Treasury has an obligation under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution to not fund abortion providers unless permitted through appropriations enacted by law.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if it leads to the closure of abortion clinics in the state of Texas, because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion clinics who are compliant with the requirements of HB 2 from performing abortions prior to 20 weeks post-fertilization, abortions necessary to prevent the death or “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition” of the mother, or an abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. In addition, several of the regulations contained within HB 2 are constitutionally permissible because these provisions of HB 2 regulate abortion in a manner that is “reasonably related to maternal health” and because they do not prohibit abortion providers who are compliant with HB 2 from performing abortions.

The United States Supreme Court should decide that laws that prohibit or regulate abortion are constitutionally permissible, even though the United States previously declared state laws that prohibited abortion as being unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, because these laws further the legitimate governmental interests “in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” which had been acknowledged in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, the state has legitimate governmental interests not acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade case that justify the prohibition of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against pain that might be felt during an abortion, a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result from an attempted abortion that fails to result in the death of the unborn child, and a legitimate governmental interest in deterring infanticide.

One of the major reasons why abortion providers in Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court is that some of the pregnant women who reside in the state of Texas and who are seeking to end pregnancies through an abortion would be deprived of the opportunity to have an abortion if HB 2 is upheld by the United States Supreme Court. However, a law that regulates or prohibits abortion does not become unconstitutional simply because of opposition by the abortion industry since these laws can be constitutionally permissible if these laws are not prohibited by the United States Constitution and if proper procedure was followed by the legislature and the governor in passing these laws. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should uphold HB 2 if it determines that the provisions of HB 2 are permitted under the United States Constitution, even if there is opposition to HB 2 by Texas abortion providers.

The majority of pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through an abortion choose to do so because they do not want to take care of their unborn children after birth. Having an abortion and raising the child on her own after birth are not the only options available for a woman who is in an unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy because she also has the option to give up her unborn child for adoption if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. In addition, the denial of an abortion to a pregnant woman who is in a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy is not unreasonable if the mother is able to safely carry the pregnancy to the stage at which her unborn child is likely to be viable outside of the womb with proper medical care, if the mother is able to safely deliver her unborn child alive with proper medical care, if the mother has access to proper prenatal medical care, and if the mother is able to transfer legal custody, physical custody, and financial responsibility to another individual who can take care of her child after birth if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. Furthermore, there is always the risk that a pregnant woman will not be able to abort a pregnancy that is already at the stage at which her unborn child is viable outside of the womb, even if abortion is perfectly legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, because there is always the risk that she will go into labor prematurely.

Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance for women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies in the state of Texas would reduce the demand for abortions in the state of Texas. Additionally, improved access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas will provide real help to pregnant women who would no longer have easy access to abortion if Texas HB 2 is upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the plan to improve access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas should include improved access to pro-life prenatal medical care, unemployment assistance to pregnant women who are unable to work because of a complication of pregnancy, improved access to material assistance to a parent of a child who is born as a result of a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy, and making it easier for a woman who does not want to take care of her child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Finally, improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance would send the positive message that abortion is not the only option for those women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if some women would be denied abortions as a result of upholding HB 2, because the need and the demand for abortions in the state of Texas can be reduced by improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance and by making it easier for a pregnant women who does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Furthermore, the failure to uphold Texas HB 2 will unnecessarily endanger the lives and health of women who undergo abortions in the state of Texas. Finally, abortion providers who operate abortion clinics in the state of Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional in order to increase their profits and to avoid the expense of having to upgrade their existing abortion clinics or to relocate to new abortion clinics that meet the new standards.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 2

The United States Supreme Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that “state criminal abortion laws … that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy.” However, the United States Supreme Court had also decided in Roe v. Wade that “The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.” In addition, the United States Supreme Court also “conclude[d] that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation,” decided that “the pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy,” and also ruled that “the woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly” in the Roe v. Wade case. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court also ruled in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, that “if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

While the United States Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that laws that prohibit abortion were unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the prohibition of abortion impermissibly violates a pregnant woman’s right to privacy, the fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy should not have been sufficient to render laws that prohibit abortion unconstitutional because a pregnant woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and also because “governmental intrusion” involving a decision to undergo an abortion is not necessarily “unwarranted” because an abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being. In addition, there are acts that are still illegal to commit in the privacy of one’s own home or in other places where there is an expectation of privacy, including but not limited to murder, assault, child abuse, identity theft, wire fraud, mail fraud, incest, rape, statutory rape, the sexual abuse of a minor, illegal sexual relations between a teacher and a student, the possession of child pornography, the production of child pornography, the illegal possession of controlled substances, and the abuse of controlled substances, and the laws prohibiting these acts are not unconstitutional on the grounds that a person has a right to privacy or on the grounds that these acts are committed in places where there is an expectation of privacy. Furthermore, even though a woman generally has a legal right to abortion and contraception in the United States, the law still imposes restrictions on a woman’s right to decide on “whether to bear or beget a child” because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with an underage boy and because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with closely related individuals such as her brother, her father, or her son.

In the Roe v. Wade ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided 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.” However, the United States Supreme Court also effectively legalized abortion-on-demand in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, by broadly defining “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother],” and Justice William Douglas will also state in his concurring opinion of Doe v. Bolton that “the right to privacy” encompasses “the right to care for one’s health.” Furthermore, even though the United States Supreme Court required that abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” be legal during all nine months of pregnancy, the definition of health is not contained within the text of the United States Constitution, and the text of the United States Constitution does not make any kind of distinction between abortions that are not needed for the preservation of the health of the mother and abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother, at least with respect to abortions that are not essential to preventing the death of the mother. Finally, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion after viability are compelling enough to even justify prohibiting abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother, including governmental interests that were not acknowledged during the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.

The Roe v. Wade decision should be reversed, even if some people are opposed to its reversal, for several reasons. First, the government has a compelling interest in protecting both the life of an unborn child and the health of the mother during all nine months of pregnancy, and this compelling interest has even been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the final ruling of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed because human life begins at the moment of conception, and this fact is supported by both objective scientific fact and legal precedent. Third, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn human beings, despite the fact that this right had been taken away from unborn children as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, and the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibit abortion. Fourth, the fact that a woman has a right to privacy does not necessarily imply that a pregnant woman must have a right to an abortion because a woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and because a woman’s own privacy is not the only thing at stake in an decision to undergo an abortion. Fifth, the United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney representing plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney representing plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in order to arrive at its conclusions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Sixth, many issues have arisen since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases that necessitate revisiting these two decisions, including but not limited to the dangers of abortion procedures to the lives and to the health of the women who undergo abortions and the danger of irreversible harm to babies who have survived failed abortions. Finally, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton will allow states to enact laws that protect the right to life of unborn children, which is an unalienable right that should never have been taken away from unborn children.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 1

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion, even though the United States Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason in the United States, because laws that prohibit abortion protect the right to life of unborn children, which should have never been taken away in the first place, and also because the government has other legitimate interests that justify the prohibition of abortion. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has already decided 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, and these legitimate governmental interests would be furthered by laws that prohibit or regulate abortion procedures. Additionally, our founding fathers clearly intended for the constitutionally guaranteed right to life to extend to unborn children and did not intend to restrict the right to life to persons who have been born, and this position can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries.

Despite the common argument that the Roe v. Wade ruling should not be reversed under the principle of stare decisis, the United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior United States Supreme Court rulings in cases involving federal constitutional law on matters other than abortion, and as such should reverse the Roe v. Wade decision if laws that prohibit abortion are permissible under the United States Constitution. If laws that prohibit abortion are indeed constitutionally permissible in the United States, then the United States Supreme Court should never have legalized abortion through the Roe v. Wade decision because Roe v. Wade was decided on the premise that laws that prohibit abortion are not constitutionally permissible under the United States Constitution. Furthermore, justices of the United States Supreme Court should not be blindly opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision, and should be willing to do so if the United States Supreme Court determines that the prohibition of abortion is permissible under the existing provisions of the United States Constitution or if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified.

In order to answer the question of whether laws prohibiting abortion are constitutionally permissible under the United States Constitution, one needs to understand where our founding fathers and the authors of the 14th Amendment stood on the right to life of unborn children. First, our founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Second, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children, and James Wilson, one of the founding fathers who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, will say the following in his Lectures on Law: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.” Third, both the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution state that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Fourth, at least 20 states had laws prohibiting abortion that were enacted prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and that remained in effect until the Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to affect these laws. Finally, the United States Supreme Court incorrectly decided that the right to life did not extend to unborn children in the final decision of the Roe v. Wade decision, even though our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children and even though the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibited abortion.

Even though United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun stated that “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” in the Roe v. Wade decision, the United States Supreme Court has already made admissions that imply that human life begins prior to birth and that human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed in cases involving the issue of abortion.  In fact, Justice Blackmun himself will admit in Colautti v. Franklin that abortion “result[s] in the death of the fetus,” and Justice Lewis Powell, who also supported the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, will also admit the same in Simopoulos v. Virginia. Additionally, Justice Potter Stewart, another supporter of both the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, will admit that “abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life” in the Harris v. McRae Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court had referred to the “life of the fetus that may become a child” as life in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Finally, Justice Antonin Scalia will admit that abortion involves the “killing [of] a human child” in the Stenburg v. Carhart case.

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.