Roe v Wade on the Rubbish Heap

Good!

Could this be it? Could this be the hope of so many Right to Life groups, and decades of fervent prayer come to fruition?

For those of us who see abortion as a spiritual malady upon the earth, or even just those who see the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade case as flawed and legally untenable, this may seem like a dream. Indeed, I missed this report as it was released sometime in the night on Monday. A late night perusal of the headlines caught my attention, and I wonder how a story with such potential social impact could have passed us by, without the screeching harridans of the pro-infanticide crowd taking to the streets in protest.

I’m sure somewhere they are, and will be, as the news unfolds. It is the most sacred golden calf of the left – the right of hungover barflies and frat boy party favors to rid themselves of any consequences of their illicit behavior, with just a visit to the nearest scrape-and-suction center.

As we speak, Planned Parenthood execs are in crisis mode, as their business model teeters on the brink of collapse. Celebrities are planning self-righteous speeches about the “attack” on women’s health, as if abortions have anything to do with women’s health.

Calm down, you ghouls. They don’t, and never did. At all. In fact, Roe v. Wade was never presented as an issue of women’s health. That’s a lie concocted in the subsequent years, as a defense against rational, moral people, who called it out as the evil it is.

The murder of unborn children in the womb is immoral and wrong.

OH, YEAH? SO YOU’RE AGAINST WOMEN HAVING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE?

It’s an insane leap, especially when you consider even the pro-abortion outlets, such as the Guttmacher Institute, note that roughly 1% of abortions are ever for health reasons. The very vast majority of them are for convenience, only.

And now, after such a long time, and if reports are accurate, we find that the Supreme Court has drafted a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, as it was presented.

The original draft circulated back in February of this year, written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

In other words, the majority of the SCOTUS justices see it as a Tenth Amendment issue, and would see it kicked back to the states. This doesn’t totally end abortion. It does, however, give individual states the right to decide how far they’re willing to go to preserve unborn life. It takes the federal government out of its unholy partnership with Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates around the nation.

The SCOTUS draft, which is said to have been penned in December, has support down party lines, with Justices  Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett all in agreement with Alito.

Liberal appointees, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are all feverishly working on their dissenting opinions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, as usual, is the lone holdout, without any clear indication of which side he will fall to. If his past is any indicator, he’ll surely be a disappointment to those who ever thought he might still have some whiff of conservatism in his DNA.

The vote is thought to be a done deal, and has been presented in response to an ongoing Mississippi case. The opinion runs 98 pages long. It contains a 31 page appendix of historical state abortion laws, 118 footnotes, highlighting previous court decisions, expert opinions, books, and assorted authoritative content.

You can say it is quite involved.

How could it not be? This has been a hot button issue for so much of our nation, and it will effect more than just the Mississippi case, which seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks.

This isn’t even the most strict ban on abortion, but it will surely set the ball rolling on the more conservative states clamping down on the barbaric practice. There is the possibility of a mass exodus of liberals and sex traffickers to more liberal states.

Roe’s “survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect,” Alito continues, adding that its reasoning was “exceptionally weak,” and that the original decision has had “damaging consequences.”

“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Alito writes.

That would be correct.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

“Roe expressed the ‘feel[ing]’ that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance,” Alito writes.

Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the “viability” distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, “makes no sense.”

Another, equally sensitive component of the abortion issue involves race, and the eugenics factor.

It’s no coincidence that most abortion mills are located in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”

Alito writes that by raising the point he isn’t casting aspersions on anyone. “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” he writes.

He goes on to point out that this is not a decision meant to hold women back. It quite clearly is not. Abortion access, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with a woman’s rights. It’s an insane, irrational bit of emotionalism to claim otherwise, but you know it’s coming.

There are far too many readily available, easily affordable methods of birth control on the market to claim this as some sort of Handmaid’s Tale event. The notion that asking women (and men) to be proactive with their bodies and reproductive activities, rather than reactive shouldn’t be that controversial.

And you can always choose to keep those knees together, ladies.

I would go so far as to say the insistence that abortion be made a widely available birth control option is counter to the notion that women have control of their own bodies and their own decisions.

Back in December, Justice Barrett made the case for safe haven laws, that would allow for babies to be surrendered, with no questions asked, and put up for adoption, as a counter to the abortion issue.

What a wild, wacky notion – give those unwanted babies a chance to live and be taken in by families who will love them.

The Mississippi case, which precipitated this awesome ruling, will be decided in a session over the next couple of months. It is presumed that at that time, the final draft of this decision will be revealed.

From there, let the protests and prayerful celebrations begin.

You cannot legislate morality, and this is far from the perfect outcome of a barbaric practice abandoned. It is, however, a start. It is a common sense upending of a faulty law that has too long burdened our national discourse.