legally

  Thought I would post a short info piece. 

First fact: the Supreme Court does not make law. Their job is to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of proposed or existing legislation.

Secondly: only Congress can make federal law

Third: no state may make law in contradiction to federal law

Fourth: States may enact legislation that is not codified in Federal statues

 

Having established those facts, I wanted to address Roe V Wade. Should the Supreme court overturn Roe V Wade that would remove any constitutional right to abortion. It would not prohibit abortions from happening legally. That's simply because there is no Federal law prohibiting abortion! The Congress would have to make that law! They have not done so. Each individual state would/could institute their own legislation regarding abortions. That's what we are hearing about right now with Texas, La. and other states. Those laws would be legal. The only way they wouldn't be is if the Congress makes a law! Then, that law is the law of the land superseding and invalidating all others.

 So, what I want to point out is that overturning Roe V Wade will not make abortion illegal. No, it only removes any constitutional right to have an abortion. Note that isn't a legal right, and that is where the confusion comes in. Just because, in the opinion of the Supreme court, an action is constitutional that doesn't make it a law, only that, it could be a law. It would be consistent with the constitution.  Congress must decide to make it a law! That is the sole responsibility of Congress.   The Supreme Court, on numerous occasions, has stated that no law repugnant to the Constitution can be a law! The 14th amendment to the Constitution specially says you have a right to life! That amendment, along with all the others, was passed by the Congress. It could be argued that Congress cannot make any law denying the right to life. Isn't that what abortion is? In my thinking it certainly is for without any intervention in pregnancy the result is life. Seems perfectly clear.

 So in order for abortion to be legal and constitutional the 14th amendment would first have to be repealed. That would require another amendment to be ratified, repealing the 14th amendment. That happened when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. So the 18th amendment was invalidated and the 21st took its' place. That is the only instance of that taking place. Interesting to note that it involved what one could call a vice, liquor. The people wanted their liquor and the people won! You can debate all you want about whether it was a good choice or not. Over ten thousand people a year are killed in the United States by drunken drivers. 

 The real question with Roe V Wade is whether to repeal the 14th amendment. It would have to be by an amendment stating, unborn children have no right to be born! Or something in legalize that means the same thing. I can think of no way to phrase that other than to state the facts. If a woman is pregnant, meaning she will give birth to a child, that woman can decide to murder that child by medical means at any time she so chooses. Well, unless we are going to decide constitutionally just when life begins. Is there a passage in the constitution that addresses that? No there is not. It is interesting to note that the Supreme court has issued an opinion that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. Several States still have a death penalty, completely legal because there is no federal law preventing that practice. The court also issued an opinion that the Police using deadly force is prohibited under the provisions of the fourth amendment. It is however generally accepted as a practice under certain conditions because there is no federal law saying otherwise. In fact the fourth amendment would have to be repealed. So would the eighth if you think about it. Is the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment? 

 Should we change (amend) our Constitution to allow selective murder? Are we going to say you have a constitutional right to end a life? If so, can only the woman decide that? Wouldn't the father. the biological father, have equal rights and protection under the law? Can a woman, by virtue of being a woman, wield the power of life and death exclusively? Her body, her choice? The baby is a separate body! That is what is being removed. 

 This is my examination of the legal issue at hand. I have tried to keep my moral judgement separate from that. The Supreme court issues opinions on constitutionality. In short, what does the constitution say? For me, this isn't a case where you can say, this is what it says, but that isn't what it means. I believe the right to life is for everyone, from the moment of conception. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't want to carry a child, don't want to give birth, you should prevent conception. No different from I don't want to get a speeding ticket but drive 120 mph. I'm responsible, no one else. No one else should have to pay for my mistake, especially, not with their life.