Blood Lust

Roe v. Wade Is A ‘Jealous God’ 

The legacy of Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton is a 43-year flight from reason and a society and political system distorted almost beyond recognition.

Tom Neven
The Federalist
January 27, 2017

Is there a constitutional principle so sacrosanct that it can abide no exceptions? Perhaps the First Amendment? Nope. Courts have placed reasonable restrictions on free speech and the practice of religion. You can’t libel someone, nor can you sacrifice live animals. The Second Amendment? No again, as any number of gun laws attest. One can find reasonable exceptions to just about every constitutional principle.

But 43 years ago, trawling through the penumbra and emanations of the Constitution, Justice Harry Blackmun found an inviolable right that had somehow evaded the Founding Fathers: the right to kill a child in utero—mere inches from being fully born, even—for any reason or no reason. Read Roe v. Wade some time; you’ll see it’s a conclusion in search of reasons, an exercise in “raw judicial power,” in the words of dissenting Justice Byron White.

Roe v. Wade, Part III

The Most Poisonous Pollutant

Forty years have passed since the calamitous Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Looking back, the reasoning behind the decision shows all the hallmarks of a bunch of Unbelievers scratching around for a pretext to rationalise what they really wanted to have transpire--abortion on demand, the crowning glory of a culture of death.

In order to permit the unborn child to live, he or she must have "the capability of meaningful life" said the justices.  Since the unborn child could not speak for himself or herself, and since mother was speaking against it, seeking the baby's death, clearly the capability of a meaningful life was severely diminished.  Inability to communicate or to have your nearest and dearest deny your continuation implies a severe diminution of meaningful existence, after all. 

But the "value" which persuaded the court most of all and which proved to be decisive was the "right to privacy".  Harold O J Brown commented:

Roe v. Wade (Part I)

A Bloody Religion

Roe v. Wade (1973) is the infamous decision of the US Supreme Court legalising abortion in the United States.  The reasoning behind the decision has been scrutinised, ridiculed and rejected ever since.  Harold O J Brown, in an article entitled "Legal Aspects of the Right to Life"  reviews the reasoning of the judicial majority.

The first reason offered by the Court to justify their decision is this: the Supreme Court rejected the Hippocratic oath, claiming it was irrelevant.  This oath traditionally defined the duty of the medical profession to "do no harm".  It had hitherto been applied by the profession to the abortion of children.  It was understood and interpreted to require an explicit refusal to perform or even advise an abortion.  But in a magisterial overreach, the Court ruled that the Hippocratic Oath was irrelevant.  On what grounds, you may ask?