Hillary Clinton and other political candidates are wrong on the abortion issue

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, and other pro-abortion candidates for political office are wrong on the abortion issue for several reasons. First and foremost, abortion involves the killing of an human fetus or a human embryo, both of which are always considered to be unborn human beings. Second, the fact that a pregnant woman currently has a right to an abortion does not necessarily imply that women should continue to have such a right. Third, the prohibition of abortion can become constitutional again in the United States if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court has already found the abortion decision to be fundamentally different from ordinary medical decisions, even though Roe v. Wade has not yet been reversed. Fifth, the government has an interest in protecting the life of unborn children that is compelling enough to justify the prohibition of abortion. Finally, an unborn child should have a right to life, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of whether he or she is wanted by his or her mother.

Hillary Clinton insists on defending Planned Parenthood, even though every service that Planned Parenthood offers is available from providers who are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. She also insists on keeping abortion “safe” and legal, providing access to contraception without interference from government or employers, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and providing additional taxpayer funding to abortion providers by repealing the Hyde Amendment. Clinton claims that a woman’s right to an abortion is “fundamental to our country and our future,” but a woman’s right to an abortion is not essential to the survival of American society because American society existed for over 190 years without a woman’s right to abortion and because American society can adapt if women lose the right to abortion.

While presidential candidate Clinton claims that women should be “empowered to make their own reproductive health decisions,” the abortion decision is fundamentally different from ordinary medical decisions since the life of an unborn child is at stake in an decision to undergo an abortion. Most of the abortions are performed primarily for purposes other than preserving or improving the well-being of the mother, and the primary purpose of most abortion procedures is to prevent the live birth of an unborn child. As such, the abortion issue is primarily about killing unborn children, even though it is often represented as a “woman’s health” issue by pro-abortion politicians and pro-abortion candidates for political office.

Clinton and other supporters of abortion rights do believe that women should be able to decide whether and when they should have children, but they also believe that women should be able to prevent the live birth of unborn children that they do not want to have through an abortion. However, women are usually able to decide whether to have children and when to have children without abortion or birth control by choosing to abstain from sexual activity when they do not want to become pregnant. Most of the abortions in the United States occur because women are becoming pregnant when they do not want to have a child, and most of these pregnancies are the result of women voluntarily choosing to engage in sexual relations when they do not want to become pregnant.

Even though abortion rights supporters often argue that women need a right to an abortion in order to avoid poverty, in order to have economic security, and in order to be able to equally participate in society, most women would not even need a right to an abortion if they abstained from sexual activity when they do not want to become pregnant. In addition, some pregnant women, including some who are in unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies, are still able to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation” without the right to an abortion. Moreover, fewer women would seek abortions if pregnant women who are unable to work during their pregnancy have access to unemployment benefits and if more employers and educational institutions make reasonable accommodations for pregnant women. Furthermore, many of the pregnant women who are in crisis pregnancies would be willing to have their babies if they had easier access to prenatal medical care, pro-life professional counseling, and material assistance.

Although many pro-abortion politicians claim that politicians who oppose abortion “should stop playing doctor with women’s health,” politicians clearly have the authority to propose and enact laws that regulate abortion procedures because the government has legitimate interests that justify the regulation of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate interest in protecting women from dangers incurred in abortion procedures. In addition, pro-abortion politicians frequently argue that women should continue to have a constitutional right to an abortion, but the prohibition of abortion would be constitutional again in the United States if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified. Furthermore, U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators always have the authority under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would allow abortion to be regulated or prohibited in the United States.

While many supporters of abortion believe that deciding whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term should be between the mother and the doctor, the government clearly has legitimate reasons to regulate such decisions for several reasons. First, the abortion decision is fundamentally different from ordinary medical decisions because abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being and also because most of the abortions are sought for the purpose of ending the lives of unborn children who are unwanted by their mothers. Second, the decision on whether to end a pregnancy through an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term is affected by where the doctor stands on the abortion issue and by the personal beliefs of the doctor. Third, most abortionists and abortion providers operate on a business model that is based on maximum efficiency, maximum profits, and abortion-on-demand for any reason, and as such will steer women who are considering abortions towards undergoing an abortion. Finally, the government has various legitimate interests that justify regulating abortion decisions, including but not limited to protecting the lives of unborn children, protecting pregnant women against abuses by abortionists and the abortion industry, preventing medically unnecessary abortions, and preventing botched abortions.

Even though pro-abortion politicians have backing from some of their constituents, from the abortion industry, and from abortion rights organizations, there are several major problems with the position taken by pro-abortion politicians on the abortion issue. First, many of the voters who got these pro-abortion politicians elected do not properly understand the abortion issue, and many of these voters have been misled by society, by abortion rights organizations, and by pro-abortion political campaigns. Second, the pro-abortion politicians fail to respect the rights of unborn children, who should be entitled to the right to life, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of whether the child is wanted by his or her biological mother. Third, pro-abortion politicians insist on upholding a woman’s constitutional right to abortion, even though the prohibition of abortion can become constitutional again in the United States by amending the United States Constitution. Fourth, pro-abortion politicians, pro-abortion doctors, reproductive health organizations, and abortion providers often fail to properly consider alternatives to abortion for women who are in crisis pregnancies and often push abortion when other options are available. Finally, pro-abortion politicians often ignore the various legitimate governmental interests that justify regulating or prohibiting abortion.

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.

U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion

Even though U.S. states and territories are not currently allowed to enact outright bans on abortion because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion because unborn children have a right to life that is universal, fundamental, and unalienable under natural law and because abortion by its very nature involves an attempt to bring about the death of an unborn child. In addition to depriving unborn children of the right to life, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have led to the deaths of over 57 million unborn children, the legalization of abortion for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States, an increased willingness to end unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies through a legal abortion, an increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States following the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and a decreased respect for human life in the United States. Outlawing abortion in the United States will protect the right to life of unborn children and will lead to an increased respect for human life in the United States.

South Dakota has recently petitioned the United States Supreme Court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision and to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned. Other states should follow South Dakota’s lead and support efforts to either have Roe v. Wade reversed through a United States Supreme Court decision or to enact an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow states and territories to outlaw abortion. If enough states are willing to outlaw abortion, then it would certainly be possible to outlaw abortion in a constitutionally permissible manner in the United States because the United States Supreme Court would face pressure from states to uphold laws that prohibit abortion and also because enough states would probably be willing to ratify an amendment the United States Constitution if such is needed to allow abortion to be outlawed in the United States.

While U.S. Congress and some of the state legislatures have recently undertaken efforts to reduce the abortion rate, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds of fetal pain, there are a few things that are standing in the way of allowing the prohibition of abortion in U.S. states and territories. First, there are some Americans who still believe that abortion should remain legal. Second, some of the state legislatures in the United States are currently unwilling to outlaw abortion. Third, there are currently politicians in United States Congress who are opposed to prohibiting abortion. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court currently has at least four justices that are opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision and a fifth justice that might uphold the Roe v. Wade decision. Fifth, there is strong opposition to laws that prohibit abortion by abortion providers. Furthermore, while most Americans do know that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, many Americans do not fully understand what the ramifications of Roe v. Wade are. Finally, most of the Americans who still support legalized abortion have been misguided as a result of the legalization of abortion in the United States, the Roe v. Wade decision, and pro-abortion politics.

In addition to making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion, pro-life politicians should also support efforts to improve access to pro-life prenatal medical care for women who are in crisis pregnancies, to ensure that children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies are properly taken care of, to ensure that taxpayer funding is spent on providing women in crisis pregnancies with pro-life medical care instead of paying for abortions, and that former abortion industry workers can obtain good paying jobs outside of the abortion industry. These additional measures will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States and sends the positive message that pro-life politicians actually do care about the women who are in crisis pregnancies and the children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies. There is still hope for making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion if more pro-life politicians who are willing to do much more than simply outlaw abortion are elected in the United States.

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.

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.