Is Abortion Really a Right?

 

 

 

By:  David Deschesne

Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal

July 18, 2018

 

 

  With the recent nomination of Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump to fill a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, liberals are angrily hyperventilating.  But, that seems to be the only thing liberals do well—be angry and hyperventilate.  They are putting on some show about how terribly conservative Kavanaugh is when in reality, most real conservatives consider the judge, who comes from the liberal D.C. Court of Appeals, to be a “low energy” conservative.

   What liberals are really worried about is their precious right to kill babies which was granted to them under the infamous Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling. 

   The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to judge all laws and cases as to their compliance with the U.S. Constitution.  However, when it comes to actually reading the Constitution, the justices’ eyes at the Supreme Court have, more often than not, been  dim and clouded.  In some cases, the Supreme Court has handed down blatantly political decisions.  For example, in Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 305) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled tomatoes were a vegetable when in reality they are fruit.  This foolish decision was rendered by the good court in order to require tomatoes to be classified as vegetables under the 1883 tariff act so they could be assessed an import tax, while fruit was imported duty free.  There must have been a big tomato lobbying firm at work here to get these protective tariffs.  I suppose with the right amount of legal finesse they could have ruled bananas, apples, oranges and ham sandwiches to be vegetables too, so long as it comes with a tax assessment to enrich government.  Like legislators, the Supreme Court has never found a tax it didn’t like.

   So, when it comes to a “woman’s right to choose” to murder her baby, the U.S. Supreme Court dimly read the U.S. Constitution and declared proudly that that right is enshrined in the united States’ founding body of law.  But, is it really?  Does the U.S. Constitution really say a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, let alone murder a baby that happens to be growing in it?  Has anyone who supports abortion taken the time to actually read the U.S. Constitution?  I mean, in order for a right to be called “constitutional” it would have to be actually listed in the Constitution, wouldn’t it?

    How about we all take a look at the Constitution to see if a “woman’s right to choose” is really in there, or perhaps find out if the Supremes made the “right” up out of whole cloth like they do so many of their other rulings on our rights.  [Democrats beware, an objective reading of the united States’ Supreme Law of the Land follows.  All those who don’t like knowing, or following, the rules may want to avert their eyes so they can have plausible deniability when they break them—politicians included!]

   I think the first place we should look in the Constitution to find a “woman’s right to choose” would be in the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  Rather than spell them out word-for-word, in the spirit of brevity I’ll paraphrase them for you.  Let’s see now, here are those rights:

 

1st Amendment

   The right to freely exercise religion, free speech, free press and the right to peaceably assemble and petition government to correct grievances.

Abortion Rights?  Nope, not here.

 

2nd Amendment

   The right to own firearms for protection of home, person and country.

  Nope, no abortion rights here, either.

 

3rd Amendment

  No soldier to be housed in private homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner, nor in times of war without a specific law allowing it.

   This one’s antiquated since we have an established military with bases, posts and ports so no need to quarter troops in peoples’ homes.  Looks like no abortion rights in this amendment, either.

 

4th Amendment

   People are to be secure in the houses, papers, persons and effects and no government official can search them without a duly constituted search warrant.

   Nope, no abortion rights here.

 

5th Amendment

  A person cannot be compelled to be a witness against him/herself, nor can a person be tried twice for the same offence, nor shall private property be taken for public use without compensating the owner.

   Nope, no abortion rights here, either.  We’re halfway through, surely the Supremes found the “woman’s right to choose” in one of the last five amendments in the Bill of Rights...

 

6th Amendment

  The right to a speedy and public trial and to be assisted by Counsel for defense, also the right to confront witnesses.

   Nope, nothing about abortion here.

 

7th Amendment

   The right to a trial by jury.

   Nothing about abortion in this amendment.

 

8th Amendment

   Prohibition against excessive bail, excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments.

    Nothing about abortion here, either, but I’ll digress and say with our excessive bails and fines, penalties and fees in today’s court systems, this rule has essentially been tossed onto the trash heap by our legislators and judges (most of whom have never read the rule book to begin with,  even though they all had to swear an oath to uphold it).

 

9th Amendment

   Just because certain rights were enumerated in this list, doesn’t deny others retained by the people.

   Nothing about abortion being specifically mentioned as a “right” here, either, though a loosey-goosey interpretation of it might stretch way out on a limb to get that right out of thin air, perhaps. However, the “right” to murder unborn babies would certainly be woefully out of context if included within the subject matter of this list, since the rest of the list does not discuss allowing murder as a “right” in any form.

 

10th Amendment

   All powers not delegated to the U.S. government, or prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the States and to the people.

   This is a pretty powerful amendment which says anything the U.S. government hasn’t been allowed to legislate on or enforce is strictly reserved to the States and their respective citizenry.  Since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address abortion rights, the Supremes should have rightfully left this decision up to the individual States’ legislatures, but they decided on it as if the Feds even had a legitimate say on the matter.  Ergo, this amendment is being completely ignored by the feds today.

 

   Now, there’s your Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments and nothing mentioning abortion or the right to murder babies—not even close.  What about the rest of the amendments?  I’ll power through them now:

 

11th:  Judicial power of the U.S.

12th:  on the Electoral College

13th: prohibiting slavery (originally prohibiting lawyers with titles of nobility—Esquire—from serving in public office, but this one got quietly nixed by the ruling elite)

14th: pertaining to citizenship in U.S.

15th:  granting former slaves the right to vote

16th: authorizing the federal income tax (though never was properly ratified by the States and as such should be considered null and void)

17th: Takes away vote for Senators by state legislatures and gives it to the citizenry (essentially making the Senate functionally another “House of Representatives” thus eliminating the various state legislatures’ representatives in Congress)

18th:  Prohibition of alcohol

19th: Right of women to vote in elections

20th: Regulating the structure of the Office of U.S. President

21st: Repeal prohibition on alcohol

22nd: Limits U.S. President to two terms

23rd: More on Electors for Electoral College

24th: Abolishes the poll tax

25th: Dealing with vacancies in office of U.S. President

26th: Right to vote extended to those who are at least 18 years old

27th: Regulating when a law can take effect that would vary the compensation of Senators or Representatives.

 

   That was a lightning-fast perusal of the rest of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution following the first ten in the Bill of Rights.  As you can see (go look them up online and read them for yourself, if you want) there’s nothing so far that even hints at a woman’s right to murder her unborn baby.

   Surely the U.S. Supreme Court must have seen the right to murder babies somewhere in the Constitution.  If not in the Bill of Rights, or subsequent amendments, that right must be found somewhere within the main body of the Constitution.  So, what does that look like?

   A Constitution in general, whether for a country or a business, sets up the ground rules for how that country or business is going to be run, what rules the directors will have to abide by, how meetings will be conducted, how elections will be run and how business will be taken care of.

   I’ll now present a brief overview of the Articles contained in the U.S. Constitution and give a brief summary of their contents to see if abortion or the right to murder babies can be found in them somewhere:

 

Article 1

  Establishes the power of Congress, lists what it can do, and what it can’t do. Also limits its geographical jurisdiction.

 

Article 2

  Establishes the office of President and describes its power and authority

 

Article 3

   Establishes the court systems in the judicial branch and their responsibilities.

 

Article 4

   Relative to the States and their interactions between each other.

 

Article 5

   Describes the amendment process.

 

Article 6

   Establishes the U.S. Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land” and Senators and Representatives must be bound by oath to uphold it (that’s been tossed out the window, too!)

 

Article 7

  Establishment by ratification procedure.

 

   As you can see with my brief overview—or if you cared to go get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself—there is not only no mention of a woman’s “right to choose” anywhere in it, there isn’t even a slot where that right could be pegged in.   It simply isn’t addressed in the body of law that establishes our government, its system of operations or the rights enumerated.

   Now, it’s true the 9th and 10th amendments leave the topic open, and up to the States to decide, but to place it in historical context; from the time of the Constitution’s writing up to Roe v. Wade, murder of babies was never legal, or considered as a “right” to begin with.

   Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court made up the “right to choose” out of thin air when they arbitrarily rendered their Roe vs. Wade decision, skipped over the 9th and 10th amendments and granted the Feds jurisdiction they never had before.  This is what has liberals who lust after murdering babies so worried about.  They know their precious “right” to murder babies doesn’t have any historical or legal foundation to stand on and any objective reading of the Supreme Law of the Land and its accompanying Bill of Rights—even by a fifth grader who reads simple English—will show that fact.

   What liberals are worried about is a group of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who know how to read English who dare to dig out a copy of the U.S. Constitution and actually read it.  As for “legal precedent” set by previous court decisions, forget it.  The Supreme Law of the Land hasn’t changed, it just hasn’t been read or applied correctly. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court once set legal precedent by declaring black people could be owned as slaves (Dredd Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (119 How.) 393, 15 L Ed. 691 (1857)), but that didn’t make slavery right or legal in the fullest sense of the word. The Supreme Court has never been granted the authority to legislate, or change legislation, but given how they’ve been allowed to behave over the years, you wouldn’t know that. 

   If we could ever get a Supreme Court with justices who know how to read English, have a copy of the U.S. Constitution and aren’t swayed by the political winds of left-wing radicals and extremists, there’s a chance we could actually get ourselves back on track.

   But, don’t count on it.