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.

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 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.

Prohibitions on same-sex marriage should not be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court should not force the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage through a Supreme Court decision in which prohibitions on same-sex marriage are declared to be unconstitutional, even if some of the justices of the United States Supreme Court personally believe that same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide. Similar to what happened when abortion-on-demand was legalized nationwide in the United States, forcing the legalization of same-sex marriage through a United States Supreme Court decision will lead to increased support for same-sex marriage in the United States, will lead to an increased willingness to enter into same-sex marriages by homosexual persons who are in a same-sex romantic relationship, and will lead to an increase in the number of children who are raised in same-sex households as a result of the increase in same-sex marriages that would occur if it is legalized nationwide through a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Even though some of the supporters of same-sex marriage claim that a ban on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination against homosexual persons, a prohibition of same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination against homosexual persons because the prohibitions on same-sex marriage apply to all persons and not only to homosexual persons, because non-homosexual persons do not have the right to same-sex marriage in places where it is illegal, because the prohibitions on same-sex marriage are equally applicable to all persons in places where same-sex marriage is illegal without exception, and because homosexual persons who are not legally married have a legal right to contract a marriage with a person of the opposite gender. A ban on same-sex marriage can only constitute discrimination against homosexual persons when two non-homosexual persons of the same gender have a legal right to enter into a same-sex marriage but two homosexual persons of the same gender do not have a legal right to enter into a same-sex marriage, but there is no support for this kind of discrimination.

Traditional marriage, or marriage between a man and a woman, has existed in many cultures throughout the world for thousands of years. There are still many individuals throughout the world who still adhere to the traditional belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman who love each other, despite increased support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Western countries. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is materially different from same-sex marriage, and the fact that same-sex marriages are between two persons of the same gender and traditional marriages are always between a man and a woman is not the only material difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Because there are many material differences between traditional marriages and same-sex marriages, the law should uphold the traditional definition of marriage, which is defined as a legally recognized union between a man and a woman. In addition, the legalization of same-sex marriage will destroy traditional beliefs that have been deeply upheld by many individuals, many cultures, and many religions throughout the world for thousands of years.

Although the legalization of same-sex marriage will give same-sex couples legal rights that were previously restricted to couples who are in legally recognized traditional marriages, traditional marriage is a substantially different reality from same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are always incapable of having biological children together, but some of the couples who are in traditional marriages are able to have biological children together. Additionally, same-sex marriages by their very nature deprive children who are raised by a same-sex married couple of at least one of their biological parents because children who are raised in same-sex marriages always have a biological parent who is of the gender that is opposite that of the same-sex couple and who is not a party to the same-sex marriage. Furthermore, a traditional marriage is intended to be consummated through an act of marital relations that is open to the conception of a new child, but same-sex marriages are incapable of being properly consummated because same-sex couples are incapable of engaging in sexual acts between each other that can result in the conception of a new child.

There are some homosexual persons in the United States who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, and not every person who suffers from same-sex sexual attraction is willing to enter into a same-sex marriage. In addition, some of the individuals who have previously suffered from same-sex sexual attraction did end up in a successful marriage with a person of the opposite gender. It is often possible for individuals who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction to overcome such an attraction with appropriate help. The individuals who are supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States are sending the wrong message to those who are suffering from same-sex sexual attraction because the supporters of same-sex marriage fail to take into account that there is hope for those individuals who are suffering from unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.

A decision by the United States Supreme Court that legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide will have many bad consequences for American society. Like what happened when abortion was legalized nationwide as a result of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, there will be increased support for keeping same-sex marriage legal in the United States following a Supreme Court decision that legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, and the support for legalized same-sex marriage in the United States will continue to exist for decades if it is legalized nationwide through a United States Supreme Court decision. In addition, the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage will lessen the incentive for individuals who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction to obtain help in overcoming such an attraction, will lead to an increased demand for assisted reproductive technologies by same-sex couples, will lead to more children being adopted by same-sex couples, and will deprive more children of at least one of their biological parents. Such a decision will also ultimately lead to the destruction of the traditional family structure in the United States as a result of the increase in the number of same-sex marriages that would exist subsequent to the nationwide legalization through a United States Supreme Court decision as well as an increase of the number of children who would be raised in same-sex households.

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.