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.

What American voters must know regarding the abortion issue

With the 2016 elections less than 11 months away, American voters must know the following regarding the abortion issue:

  • Abortion on demand is legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy in the United States because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • Most of the abortions performed in the United States are performed by providers who are primarily in the business of performing abortions.
  • Approximately 1 million abortions are performed in the United States every year, and the vast majority of these abortions are performed primarily for the purposes of ending the life of an unborn child who is unwanted by the mother.
  • Most of the abortions in the United States are performed on healthy women who would still be in good health if they had chosen to carry the pregnancy to term and had the child born alive.
  • The business model of abortion providers is based on maximizing profits, maximizing the number of abortions performed, and performing abortions on demand for any reason, and as such are willing to cut corners on patient safety or on conditions at abortion clinics in order to increase the number of abortions and increase its profits.
  • The abortion industry opposes restrictions on abortion that are considered to be reasonable by the majority of Americans on the grounds that these regulations would hurt the bottom line of abortion providers, that these restrictions would lead to the closure of legitimate abortion clinics, that some women would lose access to legal abortion, and that the abortion providers consider the restrictions to be unnecessary.
  • The abortion providers that perform late-term abortions want abortion-on-demand to remain legal after viability for reasons other than the preservation of the life or health of the mother, including but not limited to the ability to harvest fetal body parts from aborted fetuses, the ability to perform additional abortions, and the ability to make additional profit.
  • Many of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would choose to carry a pregnancy to term if they had access to prenatal medical care, if they had the material and emotional support needed to carry their pregnancies to term, and if they are given the support needed to either raise the child or to give up the child for adoption.
  • Even though abortion rights supporters often argue that women would resort to illegal back-alley abortions if abortion is outlawed, most of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would be unwilling to seek an illegal abortion if abortion becomes illegal again.
  • Infanticide of babies who are unwanted by their mothers is still happening in the United States, even with abortion on demand legal during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States.
  • It is possible to reduce the demand for illegal abortions if abortion is outlawed by improving access to pro-life professional counseling, pro-life prenatal medical care, adoption placement services, and material assistance to women who are in crisis pregnancies.
  • Even though the abortion industry, abortion rights organizations, and pro-abortion politicians often claim that abortion is usually a safe medical procedure, there have been at least 30 documented botched abortion incidents at 19 different abortion clinics where the patient had to be rushed to the emergency room in 2015.
  • Since Roe v. Wade has been legalized in the United States, there have been over 400 women who died from legal abortions, many women have suffered bodily injuries and emotional harm from legal abortions, and over 57 million unborn children have been killed as a result of legal abortion.
  • While it is perfectly understandable that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest should not have to suffer being pregnant as a result of rape or incest, there should not be rape or incest exceptions in laws prohibiting abortion because an abortion of a rape-conceived or incest-conceived pregnancy still involves the killing of an unborn child, because some of the women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest actually do not want to abort an rape-conceived or incest-conceived pregnancy, and because some of the women who carried rape-conceived or incest-conceived pregnancies to term are actually opposed to the rape and incest exceptions.
  • Unless Roe v. Wade is reversed or unless an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows states to restrict abortion is ratified, abortion providers will continue to fight laws that restrict abortion in federal courts, including appeals all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, in order to prevent closures of abortion clinics and in order to protect the bottom line of abortion providers.
  • The United States Supreme Court has already found that abortion is fundamentally different from ordinary medical procedures in the Harris v. McRae decision because abortion, unlike other medical procedures, “involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.”
  • In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court 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” even though the Supreme Court has not yet reversed the Roe v. Wade decision.
  • Even though there are some individuals who believe that Roe v. Wade should not be reversed, Roe v. Wade must be reversed because the U.S. Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington, because the Roe v. Wade decision contains inconsistencies on the question of a pregnant woman’s right to privacy, because the 14th Amendment, which was the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion, because the Roe v. Wade decision was based on assumptions that do not necessarily hold true, and because issues have arisen since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that necessitate revisiting these two decisions.
  • The Doe v. Bolton decision, which was the companion case to Roe v. Wade, must be reversed because plaintiff Sandra Cano’s own rights were violated in Doe v. Bolton, because the conclusions of that case were based on material misrepresentations of the facts of Sandra Cano’s pregnancy by attorney Margie Pitts Hames, because Doe v. Bolton is inconsistent with the realities of the abortion industry, and because the broad definition of “health of the mother” in Doe v. Bolton had effectively legalized abortion on demand for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy.
  • It is possible for the United States Supreme Court to have been wrong in deciding Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because these cases were decided over 100 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, because a woman’s right to abortion was not popular in the United States before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, because the United States Supreme Court relied on false statements and misrepresentations of the relevant facts in these two cases, because the right to an abortion is not explicitly guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and because the 14th Amendment was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion.
  • Although Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have not yet been reversed, the United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior decisions involving federal constitutional law on matters other than abortion and as such should reverse Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton since these decisions were improperly decided and because the main conclusions of these two cases are inconsistent with other findings made by the United States Supreme Court in these two cases.
  • Abortion rights organizations, including but not limited to NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Federation, Center for Reproductive Rights, and RH Reality Check, all support keeping abortion on demand legal in the United States, but the arguments being made by these organizations ignore the fact that those who oppose legalized abortion have good reasons for opposing legalized abortion.
  • Although the abortion rights organizations attempt to defend support for legal abortion, these organizations fail to give good reasons why abortion on demand should be legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy.
  • Abortion deprives unborn children of the right to life, which is a universal right under the natural moral law that should never have been taken away from unborn children. The right to life of an unborn child should never have been dependent on whether or not the unborn child is wanted by his or her mother, and unborn children should have had this right legally protected regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of the health of the mother.

“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 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.

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.

Enacting a 20-week-ban on abortion in the United States

A ban on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization should be enacted, and such a ban should not include a rape or incest exception. Although it is perfectly understandable that women who become pregnant as a result of rape should not have to suffer through an unplanned pregnancy that was caused by an act beyond her control, rape and incest exceptions should not exist in laws that prohibit abortions because:

  • Abortion always kills an innocent human being
  • Rape-conceived pregnancies can usually be safely carried to term
  • Cases where rape-conceived pregnancies cannot be carried to term are already addressed through “life of the mother” exceptions and “health of the mother” exceptions to prohibitions on abortion
  • Women who do not want to take care of a rape-conceived children can give up their babies for adoption
  • Some women who become pregnant as a result of rape are actually unwilling to abort a rape-conceived pregnancy

In addition to the above reasons, most of the women who have been raped are aware that they have been raped, and these women can find out whether or not they became pregnant as a result of rape well before the 20th week of pregnancy through an ultrasound because a pregnancy will usually show up on an ultrasound by the 8th week of pregnancy.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization or after a gestational age of 22 weeks. Unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In fact, Amillia Taylor was born at a gestational age of 21 weeks and 6 days and did survive being born that early. If Amillia Taylor could survive outside of the womb a day earlier than the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, then other unborn children might be able to be saved if born at 20 weeks post-fertilization.

The United States Supreme Court had established the following trimester framework in the Roe v. Wade case:

  • During the first trimester of pregnancy, the abortion decision and the performance of the abortion must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
  • From approximately the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the state can regulate abortions in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health in order to further its interest in protecting its interest in the health of the mother.
  • For the stage of the pregnancy subsequent to viability, the state can regulate and even go as far as prohibiting abortion, except where “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”, where “health of the mother” is defined as the “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” well-being of the mother.

Since unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the first part of the Roe trimester framework does not apply to abortions that would be prohibited under this act and the second and third parts of the Roe trimester framework are clearly applicable to abortions that would be prohibited under this proposed act.

Roe v. Wade has enabled legal abortion-on-demand in the United States for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth through the imposition of a “health of the mother” exception requirement in the Roe v. Wade trimester framework and through the broad definition of “health of the mother” in the Doe v. Bolton case. However, at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices that were involved in the final decision of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, including two justices that supported the final decision in both of these cases, did not intend for there to be a right to abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.

Although the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act does provide exceptions for the life of the mother and for “the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including  psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant women,” this proposed legislation does not explicitly include an exception for the health of the mother and this proposed legislation is probably unenforceable due to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, except in the case of partial-birth abortions through the intact dilation and extraction technique. This legislation will probably be challenged in the federal courts if it is enacted because this legislation does not include an explicit, broad “health of the mother” exception, and also because there would be strong opposition to this legislation by the abortion industry.

The United States Supreme Court is likely to hear a case involving a law that prohibits abortions after 20-weeks post-fertilization. The United States Supreme Court should uphold such a law, and the United States Supreme Court should also rule that states can even prohibit abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of mother after viability for the following reasons:

  • The bans on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization being proposed by the United States Congress and by some states recognize a governmental interest of protecting unborn children against fetal pain.
  • Unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at 20 weeks post-fertilization.
  • Abortions can pose a serious danger to the “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” well-being of the mother, even in cases where an abortion is deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • Abortions performed for the purposes of preserving the life or health of the mother are sometimes ineffective in preserving the life or health of the mother.
  • The text of the United States Constitution does not distinguish between abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother and abortions that are not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The imposition of a “health of the exception” requirement in the Roe v. Wade trimester framework implies the existence of a constitutionally guaranteed right to health-preserving medical care that is not essential to preventing the death of a patient, even though such a right does not exist within the text of the United States Constitution.
  • Except in the case of abortion, the United States Supreme Court has never declared a constitutionally guaranteed right to health-preserving medical care that is not essential to preventing the death of a patient.
  • The United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement for a “health of the mother” exception in the Roe v. Wade decision without citing any basis in the United States Constitution for such a requirement.
  • Even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions had the effect of legalizing abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices involved in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, including two that supported these decisions, did not intend for these cases to create a right to abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • The governmental interests that enable the government to prohibit abortions after viability in cases where abortions are not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother still exist in cases where abortions are necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The majority of Americans believe that abortion-on-demand should be illegal after viability.

Even if Roe v. Wade is not completely reversed, I predict that the following decisions will be made in future cases before the United States Supreme Court:

  • States will be allowed to regulate any abortion procedure performed after the moment of implantation.
  • After viability, states will be allowed to prohibit abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother in some circumstances.
  • States will eventually be allowed to prohibit abortions after viability in all circumstances, even when an abortion is deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Today is the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton

Today is the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, both of which enabled abortion-on-demand to be legal in the United States during all nine months of pregnancy. Over 57 million unborn children have been killed as a result of legal abortion in the United States since abortion-on-demand was legalized nationwide during all nine months of pregnancy on January 22, 1973. The debate over whether abortion should become illegal in the United States is far from over, despite what the United States Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton 42 years ago.

The United States House of Representatives is currently proposing two major pieces of pro-life legislation. The first major piece, known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds that unborn children can feel fetal pain at that stage of pregnancy. The second major piece, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, would prohibit federal funding of most abortion procedures, would prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion coverage under healthcare plans, and would require full disclosure of any abortion coverage under any healthcare plan provided pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Obama is likely to veto both of these pieces of legislation if these pieces of legislation pass in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. In addition, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection act would probably be challenged in federal courts if it becomes law because of opposition to this piece of legislation by the abortion industry and also because this law might not meet the health exception requirement under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold Texas HB 2, which was passed by the Texas Legislature in the second special session of the 83rd legislature and signed into law on July 18, 2013, because the intent of the law is to protect women who are undergoing abortions from the dangers of abortion procedures and also because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion providers from performing legal abortions at abortion clinics that meet the standards required under HB 2. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should also rule that prohibitions on late-term abortion and partial-birth abortion are constitutionally permissible in every circumstance, even when the an abortion has been determined to be necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Both of these actions would benefit American society, would lead to a reduction in the overall abortion rate, and would lead to decreased demand for abortion in the United States if the United States Supreme Court upholds HB 2 and rules that prohibitions on late-term abortion are constitutionally permissible in every circumstance.

In addition to prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions and prohibiting late-term abortions, more needs to be done to help women who are in unplanned pregnancies to ensure that these women will not resort to abortion and to ensure that their children are taken care of after birth. Improving access to prenatal care for women who are in unplanned pregnancies through healthcare providers that will not pressure them into undergoing abortions will encourage these women to choose life, will reduce the demand for abortion, and will lead to more healthy babies being born. In addition, providing assistance to low-income women and improving access to adoption placement assistance for pregnant women who do not want to raise their unborn children after birth will reduce the demand for abortion.