Skip to comments.Judge Admits "facts no longer matter" in Abortion Decisions. MUST READ!
Posted on 09/17/2004 9:34:31 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
LifeSite Daily News
Friday September 17, 2004
Judge Admits "facts no longer matter" in Abortion Decisions
McCorvey motion to overturn Roe v. Wade moves toward Supreme Court
SAN ANTONIO, September 17, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Circuit Court judge has dismissed the motion brought forward by Norma McCorvey, known to legal history as "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, to overturn the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the US. However the judge, Edith Jones of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has made some surprising statements in her ruling that gives hope that Roe v. Wade is itself on its way to being history.
The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. C. S. Lewis
"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that."
Robert H. Bork Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
Abortionists commit first degree murder.
From the law dictionary:
n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, or involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder, are established by statute in each state and by the U.S. Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.
Abortionists clearly act with malice aforethought.
From the law dictionary:
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.
The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court.
In Steinberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology."
"Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."
Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier!
The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.
WHY does that picture of scotus make me think of PURE EVIL?
McCorvey motion to overturn Roe v. Wade moves toward Supreme Court.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
In fact, the Supreme Court would not itself 'recriminalize' abortion. If Roe were overturned, as it should be, then the matter would return to the states. It would be state legislatures and Governors who would be doing the banning or permitting of abortions. And that is as it should be.
Fr. John Corapi S.O.L.T.
IMO - This may be the most powerful, and accurate, 52 seconds of speech about the American holocaust ever spoken.
And this is why he ROE V WADE decision was one of the worst decisions in the history of the court. If abortion were being decided in the political arena the fact women are being devastated by abortion (to say nothing of the babies) would be a consideration for legislators to consider. ROE V WADE found the word "privacy" in the Constitution which means each woman has the right to decide for herself regardless of the impact on society at large, other women, or the baby. We can argue all day long that woman and babies are being brutalized by abortion and it has nothing to do with the basis for the supreme court ruling. The only way to slow down or stop abortions is for another court to decide abortion is not a consitutional right and throw it back to the States to legislate. While one can argue an unborn baby should be protected by the constitution, I think a ruling outlawing abortion is not likely.
I knew the facts didn't matter when the courts kept overturning partial-birth abortion laws under the pretense that it is sometimes necessary to protect the mother's health. It never is, because the alternative to partial-birth abortion is not continued pregnancy, it is live birth.
White's minority decision was far from evil.
Well, yes, as a purely Constitutional reading--which is the first wrong to correct.
If their spirits could talk today I think they could answer that question.
Roe v. Wade was based on "science." It may fall on "science." Courts using "science" for constitutional grounded decisions has always been questionable, and for good reason. Our system expected legislatures to enact or repeal laws based on "science," not the courts. In any event, this lower court was deferring to a higher court's ruling, and that is our system, like it or not. I like it. Any other system would lead to jurisprudential chaos.
I personally think that abortion is wrong in most circumstances, so yes it makes no moral sense to have abortion on demand in Vermont and Mass, but to have it available only in rare instances in Mississippi and South Dakota.
But having that mixed, checker-board system where the people get to decide is better than having the policy imposed from an imperious Sup Court.
If in overturing Roe, the Sup Court found that the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, is silent on the issue, then the only way to federalize it would probably be through an Amendment. Neither side could muster the support to pass a firmly pro-life or firmly pro-abortion (or choice if one prefers) Amendment. So it would probably remain with the states, though obviously a Congressional ban on partial birth abortions would easily pass as it has many times already.
1973 Supreme Court a.k.a. Murderer's Row
We've entered the bizarre Land of
I might add that on fundamental issues involving constitutional interpretation overriding existing laws, stare decisis is rather fragile. Where controversy continues, it is even more fragile. Nothing is entrenced. In that sense, Jones is wrong, completely wrong. It just depends on the personalities with the power of the judicial decisional pen.
please add me to your ping list.
Thanks, God Bless You,
So many of the "facts" depend on a piori assumptions about what stage of nascent human existence mandates some legal protection, or none. The courts are particularly ill suited to decide that one as a matter of law. If any issue demands being resolved in the public square via the ballot box it is this one. The "truth" is totally subjective, and thus in a democracy requires majority rule. I put "science" in quotes for a reason. It is a canard. Science may have some influence has to who we come to our a priori conclusions and how to weight the competing considerations, but it has no real relevance to the law, particularly constitutional law. To go there, is to fall into the abyss, as we have seen. The effect on the public square is akin to a toxic waste dump.
When one does the arithmetic, every day in the US, mothers to be are aborting more babies, than died on 9/11.
Every day, 365 days a year, 2800 souls.
MUST read later
"If something is wrong for long enough, it becomes a permanent wrong."
In this case that is sadly correct.
IIRC, that was the essence of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE at:
NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL at:
Knights For Life at
Thanks and God Bless You,
Some reference regarding "facts" "truth" and "science"
When does life begin?
We have ABSOLUTE Irrefutable truth, Scientific proof
* In 1981, a US Senate committee held hearings on when human life begins. Speaking on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life begins at conception.
* "The Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence. Human life begins at conception "
* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."
* Professor Eugene Diamond on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."
15 weeks, Hey look, this non-viable disposable blob of tissue is sucking its thumb
Lets review the milestones of a persons life before they are born:
· By the seventh day of life, the new person is planted in the uterus, home for the next nine months.
· By day 17, the blood cells and the heart are formed.
· By day 24, there is a heartbeat.
· By six weeks, the childs nervous system is controlling their body. He or she now looks distinctly human. Throughout pregnancy the child is mostly in control--even to what day they will be born.
· By day 45, the baby has his own brain waves, which he will keep for life.
· By seven weeks, he has all the internal organs of an adult (though he weighs only one-thirtieth of an ounce and is less than one inch long.)
· By eight weeks, all external organs are formed, by nine to ten weeks, he can drink and breath amniotic fluid.
· From this age on is just a matter of time for growth. Before he is born, he can suck his thumb, cry (if he had air), and recognize his mother's voice and heartbeat.
· By the fourth month the child weighs about 5 ounces and is between 6 and 7 inches long. He has developing fingernails and eyelashes, and already has unique fingerprints that will remain the same for the rest of his life.
· At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks.
· By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the 2nd trimester it can hear.
· Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
· The fetus savors its mother's meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
· Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
· Before the first trimester is over, it yawns, sucks, and swallows, as well as feels and smells. By the end of the second trimester, he or she can hear; toward the end of pregnancy, can see.
Pro-Choice Advocates Agree that Abortion Kills Humans.
Many abortion advocates have agreed that abortion kills human life: A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure says that life begins at conception: This is a direct quote "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."
Similarly, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood has stated that "abortion is the taking of a human life"
Dr. Magda Denes who performed two years of research in an abortion facility and compiled her results told a Chicago newspaper "There wasnt an (abortion) doctor who at one time or another in the questioning did not say this is murder."
This so called Womens Right to Choose
to abort her baby has as its foundation, three main points:
1. It must ignore universally acknowledged biological facts,
2. It denies federal and state laws that clearly identify the unborn as a person with rights.
3. It promotes a blatant lie that Its a womans body When clearly IT is her baby within her body.
To the best of my knowledge, there is only ONE scenario when PBA is the best solution. (I can't remember what it's called right now, but I *think* it's hydrocephalus.) The baby's head can be HUGE (think basketball) and impossible to deliver. The baby hasn't developed a brain and the head is over-filled with fluid. The PBA is safer for the mother than a C-section and preserves her fertility for a later try.
In these very RARE situations, when a baby has failed to develop a brain AND has hydrocephalus, I believe that PBA is the best way to resolve the situation. (Actually, I believe that this was what it was developed for in the first place.)
That said, as long as PBA is legal, it will NEVER be confined to these rare, horrible tragedies. It will be abused as such thing always are. Any PBA ban must include only this situation and then lock the door tight.
She implied that had the facts been known at the time, the decision might have been different.
No, Blackmun et al were not interested in "just the facts." They were revolutionaries who had bought into the "zero population growth" mentality of the 1970s.
In most courts today, the "facts" are determined at the first trial level and cannot be changed (unless liberals want them changed). Appeals courts look at "principles of law," not the "evidence" itself.
Edith Jones is considered a very conservative judge by TX standards. In her own way, she is part of the judicial tyranny engulfing the USA. And the people say? NOTHING!
All of what you have written is gospel: and that's why it's rejected by the leadership and the people of the USA. Leadership calls this "pushing your religion down our throats." I wonder if the leaders or the people will ever, in the famous liberal words, "get it."
Well, really liberal courts do correct "wrong" if it involves the liberal philosophy or liberal people whose ox is being gored. The problem is the people, who do not understand judicial tyranny.
Is Justice Blackmun burning in hell? Only God knows....
No--it wasn't even based on science; science, especially in this matter, weighs in on the life-side. Worse still, the majority decision (a true masterpiece of twisted logic and utter ignorance or avoidance of the Constitution) claimed the Court had no particular expertise in ANY of the fields that might inform a decision. That decision was the price for Congress's failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, period. NOW & Planned Parenthood found it much easier to lobby the addled brains on the Court than the elected "brains" of the Legislative branch. And, of course, overturning the existing law of every single state in the union, usurping a Constitutionally granted right of each of those states, as White said, was nothing less than raw judicial power. The chaos BEGAN with the Supreme Court, not the state courts.
If anything, the 14th Amendment (as you mention) could have been the basis for denyiing the state's right to decriminalize abortion; but it couldn't have been the basis for affirming decriminalization (and indeed it wasn't). And of course there was no explicit power of the Supreme Court to act on a right reserved to the States in the first place!
Very, VERY good. Wonder if we'll EVER see/read anything like that in ANY schools--public, private, Christian, Catholic. Thank you for posting.
Fact is, abortionists are serial killers for court-protected hire to slaughter selected alive unborn children while still at least partially in their mother's body. The democrat party has gained millions of votes by protecting this evil, making that party the servant of evil. But facts don't matter to the godless and those actively rebelling against God's sovereignty ... sadly, it is the unborn or partially born little ones who are drenching this evil behavior with their innocent blood. Sounds a whole lot like the worship of Molech to me!... And we can read what God did to the Israelites practicing such evil. But then, democrat politicians don't believe God anyway, so their service to evil continues to spread the rot across America. But make no mistake, we the people will get what we deserve for not stopping this tide of evil ...
What was your take on the report this week that 42 percent of "prolife" people are not registered to vote?
CP, thanks for the ping. Unusual! But, a step in the right direction, albeit a very small step, still a step!
I wonder what kind of end all those 1973 Justices came to? How many voted for and how many against?
Well, I see you answered my question here.
I wonder how many mothers, (like mine) who wanted to have an abortion, but could not, look at their children and say, "I wish I could have aborted them"?
I know many who live in sadness and guilt, who often say, "I wish I wouldn't have had that abortion".
So, cliff, while 1,000 of our troops died in Iraq, how many helpless, innocent babies died in their mother's wombs?
Seems Iraq is a safer place than an American mother's womb!
I agree with you that an abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. It is the 'innocent' part that makes comparisons to the death penalty out of place.
But I do think that they should be allowed if the mother's health is truly in danger if she carries the baby to term and gives birth to it.
Practically speaking, I think that the best that could happen on a policy level is for Roe to be overturned and for the matter to return to the states. If that happens you would have a polygot of laws. Some states in the Northeast would probably only restrict late-term abortions, but the restrictions would likely be so weak so as to have a defacto policy of abortion on demand. Some states would probably be very restrictive and allow for abortions only in those threat-to-the-mother cases, while othres would probably extend exceptions to include rape, incest, etc.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least policy wouldn't result from judicial fiat.
And Mach9: you are right about lack of respect for States' rights. The Tenth Amendment might as well not even exist considering how it is ignored.
"Roe v. Wade" was 7-2, with the dissenters being then Associate Justice Rehnquist, R-AZ, appointed by Nixon, and former (and late) Justice Byron White, D-CO, appointed by JFK. The "Wade" in the case was the late Dallas Co. District Attorney Henry Wade, a Democrat.
Its predecessor "Griswold v. Connecticut," which forbade a state from outlawing the sale of birth control devices, was also 7-2, with Justice White (replaced by ultraliberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D-NY) in the opposition. White said the issue should be decided in the legislature in Hartford, not in D.C. Griswold established the concept of "privacy," which was expanded by "Roe."
Actually, it was "Doe v. Bolton," also 1973, which permitted abortion on demand by adding psychological reasons as a basis for an elective abortion. I don't know the vote on "Doe." The "Bolton" in the case was the late GA attorney general Arthur Bolton, a Democrat.
Ironically both Norma McCorvey in TX ("Roe") and Sandra Cano in GA ("Doe") have tried to get both decisions overturned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.