Ending Abortion

ROE V. WADE APPLICATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Constitution sets up three branches of government. The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, in that order. Each has their respective duties in regards to the law. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch carries out the laws that comes from the Legislative, and the Judicial branch adjudicates the laws from the Legislative.

Article I gives the information about the Legislative, their make up, powers and responsibilities. Article II does the same for the Executive branch. And, Article III does the same for the Judicial branch.
Article III of the Constitution sets up the one Supreme Court as the highest court in the United States. It explains in what cases the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and in what cases they have appellate jurisdiction.

Nowhere does Article III state that the Supreme Court has the power to either make law or repeal law. And yet, that is how their decisions are always applied, and I believe that is unconstitutional. Again, the Judiciary does not have the power to pass or repeal laws. And, as far as I can find out so far, passing and repealing laws is not an appellate function. Therefore, no law in any State should have been "struck down," not even the Texas law, where this case began, because that is not an appellate function. The only function of an appellate court is to determine if the lower courts got their decisions right. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court does not have the power to end any law in any State, unless, based on the 10th Amendment, the State passed a law that is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. And there are very few things that are prohibited to the States by the Constitution. Such as there is no prohibition by the Constitution to the States to have laws regarding reproduction. And that is what the Texas law in question was about. And since the Court made the decision based on privacy, even if they had the power to strike down laws, the laws of the States regarding reproduction should not have been struck down since the majority decision had nothing to do with reproduction, which was a point of the dissenting opinions written by Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist.

In their dissent Justice White wrote...
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." Quote from Wikipedia.

The Supreme Court, according to White, does not have the power to disentitle the people or the legislatures of the 50 States to enact laws regarding the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus. Yet that is how this decision was applied. And that is why I say the Roe v. Wade decision of the Court was unconstitutionally applied, since the Courts decision had nothing to do with reproductive standards, but rather the right of privacy as the majority opinion states, "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

So, you see, since the decision was based on the right to privacy, the laws in the States regarding reproduction should have remained in tact. And since the Court does not have the power to repeal laws to begin with, no law should have been struck down. Appellate decisions should only affect the one case. However, this case, the whole thing is moot since the baby has already been delivered by the time of the decision. Since the baby has been delivered, how did the mother even have standing to bring this case to the Supreme Court?

No matter how you look at it, Roe v. Wade was a rotten decision, and totally misapplied to the States.

ROE V WADE ... XI, 2



2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.


COMMENT:


In the "preceding paragraphs" the term "physician" is only employed, not defined. In fact, I have seen nowhere in this opinion of the Court where the term "physician" is defined. Therefore, should a State define a "physician" as "one who is licensed by the State, and has taken and upholds the Hippocratic Oath, theoretically, that should end abortion.



Part of the Hippocratic Oath is as follows:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."



In a State that defines a "physician" as above, abortion would not only be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, but also a violation of law. This has no effect on the crux of the Opinion of the Court, which has come to be known as "the woman's right to choose." Any woman seeking to have an abortion would simply have to find a State that does not define a Physician in the manner above.



Since there is no definition for the term, "physician," nor any enumerated power for Congress to define the term in the Constitution, it is, based on the Tenth Amendment, in the purview of the States to make that definition.



Therefore, for those States who are against abortion, I suggest you write this definition into your laws.

ROE V. WADE: EQUAL PROTECTION

The 14th Amendment states that no person within the jurisdiction of a State may be deprived of the equal protection of the laws. But the Court did this very thing in Roe v. Wade. They allowed women a right, but did not allow men the same right, so men do not have equal protection of the laws. If women should be allowed an abortion, under this equal protection clause, so should men. After all, women can't become pregnant on their own. Some how they must be inseminated. Most often that takes a man. Suppose a man would decide having a child at this time would too much of a burden, why can't he instruct the woman to have an abortion? But he doesn't have that right. Therefore, Roe v. Wade violates the very clause the Court used to establish this right of a woman to have an abortion, because men don't have the same right, therefore men do not have the equal protection of the laws.

At the same time, suppose the father decided he wants the baby. The woman doesn't, so she terminates her pregnancy. The man doesn't have the right to chose life, only a woman can. Therefore, in this case also, a man does not have equal protection of the laws.

Anytime certain rights are established for certain groups, and not everyone, equal protection of the laws goes out the window. It would be like saying men have the right to own guns, but not giving the same right to women. When ever rights are divided, there can be no equal protection of the laws.

To make it right, States have to pass laws allowing men the equal protection of the laws. To do so will be well within the decision of the Court in Roe v. Wade.