Hot Take: The Supreme Court Did NOT Establish Justice for the Preborn
While many are hailing the recent SCOTUS leak of their intention to overrule Roe w. Wade, Abortion Abolitionists have many cautions in place and warnings that this may not be all it seems. We wanted to highlight their perspective. From Russell Hunter, Director of Free the States, an Oklahoma-based lobbying group dedicated to passing bills to truly abolish abortion across the country.
Written on Facebook just hours before the SCOTUS decision leaked:
“If the Supreme Court rules later this year that abortion is not a Constitutional right and never has been, we will have had 50 years of total state subserviency to a legal fiction which led to the mass murder of seventy million Americans.
Of course there will be incrementalists who claim that they were right to obey the court’s unjust decree for five decades and that we never would have gotten to this point without their fifty-year focus on seeking increments and regulations rather than outright abolition.
What a shameful wicked prideful argument that will be! For, if the court rules that the long-held prohibition of a states’ rights to criminalize abortion is not constitutional and has in fact never been constitutional and the court was just wrong, then the past fifty years of obedience to the court will have been fifty years disobedience to God and the US Constitution.
Delaying abolition for fifty years in service to an unconstitutional and iniquitous decree will be nothing to brag about.
PS: What is perhaps equally as sad and frustrating is that we will still have to Free the States from participating in state-sanctioned child sacrifice as a result of the vast indoctrination of abortion rights sentiment cultivated by the past fifty years of abortion regulationism which has ruled supreme on both the left and the right of our culture of death.
And then written a few hours after the leaks:
For the past 5 decades, not a single state government in the union has upheld the constitutionally recognized inalienable right to life or obeyed God over and above the Supreme Court. They have all submitted to the Supreme Court and have refused to protect preborn children from abortion. They have all followed the legal fiction of Roe v Wade and granted special murder rights to any women who become a mother. As a result some 70 million babies have been butchered in the womb under the color of unjust laws and pro-life regulations.
Now the states are looking to the Supreme Court to give them permission to regulate abortion beyond what they have already been doing and the pro-life industry is celebrating the potential granting of a states’ right to regulate abortion within their borders as a great victory.
Unfortunately in many of the most pro-life states legislation has already been passed granting mothers total immunity from prosecution if and when they carry out their own abortions (self-managed abortion is massively on the rise). Even in states where abolitionist agitation and lobbying have provoked pro-life establishment politicians to pass court-compliant “trigger bills” as substitutes for abolition, none of the bans on abortion that are to be triggered by a repeal of Roe seek to establish equal justice and equal protection for preborn human beings.
In the event that SCOTUS does rule in accordance with Justice Alito’s leaked draft, justice will not be established in a single state of the union. Every state will still need to pass bills of total and immediate abolition and enforce laws establishing equal justice and equal protection for the preborn.
Of course, it would be even better if the federal government would likewise pass a bill or act of total and immediate abolition which criminalized the practice of child sacrifice in all 50 states. The federal government does have the right and duty to carry out such an act! If they did, no doubt we would see many liberal states attempt to nullify the abolition act and threaten to secede from the union in order to protect the “peculiar institution” of abortion.
All of this is to say that the battle against abortion is far from over. Do not let any of the organizations hyping Alito’s draft and claiming victory for the pro-life movement induce you to let up a single second. In all truth, the supreme Court would not even be considering the repeal of Roe v Wade were it not for the growing threat of state-by-state abolitionist nullification.
We cannot let up now. We must increase our demand for total and immediate abolition. Power concedes nothing without a demand and the conflict between those who want abortion to be utterly abolished and those who want to retain the states’ right to regulate it continues. Press on for the glory of God and love of your preborn neighbors!
About Author
Prediction: Big Eva beclowning themselves
The situation is better than it was, and frankly, sometimes, that’s the best you can hope for.
That’s all very true. No doubt it is a two-edged sword, but a few additional things worth noting come to mind: 1) Republicans would never ban abortion at the federal level. They’re too spineless, and the blue-blood, elite crowd is pro-abortion to start with. You can forget that ever happening. Waiting and hoping for that to happen is about like expecting to hit the lottery 200 times in the same week, in 40 different states. It won’t happen. 2) Decentralization is a good thing. We’re a deeply divided country, and right now we basically have the entire country living under the dictates of a select few large cities, and activist special-interest groups. The decentralized/federalist model was originally put in place for a very good reason. What’s right for one state, city, or town may not be right for another state, city, or town. Yet if everything is centralized, you have constant bickering and fighting back-and-forth over who’s values, beliefs, and morals will reign supreme over the rest of the country. So an atheist in California complains, and next thing you know all towns throughout the country have to take down Ten Commandments displays. This decentralization was the original meaning of Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” – For example, that groups and towns such as the Danbury Baptists would not have to take down their Ten Commandments display, so to speak, just because somebody in some other town, or even their own state, didn’t like it. 3) It’s also worth noting that nearly all law that is related to protection and enforcement of the right to live is delegated to the states. Murder, for example. And any and all such law would have to be shifted to the federal level. The federal government has recognized basic natural, God-given rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property, but most of the law related to protection and respect of those rights has always mostly been delegated to the states. Roe did not fail to recognize the existence of the right to live. It just arbitrarily and fallaciously decided when life begins, based on so-called “viability,” and therefore when that right to live begins. The problem isn’t whether or not the federal government recognizes the existence of the right to live. It does. The problem is the arbitrary designation of when life begins, against all logic, ethic, morality, and even science.
All that said, I don’t disagree with the poster. I’m just throwing out some more things worth considering, which come to mind.
I would add, with the “left’s” introduction of so-called “positive rights” (which are nothing more than a way to try to justify infringement on the natural rights of others), the right to live is only as good as what they deem to be best for the collective whole of society. Not much unlike all collectivists in history, trying to take the place of God, the right to live is dependent on whether or not they deem you “fit” and beneficial. They’ll recognize the existence of a right to live. But they’ll manufacture scenarios where that right is ignored and nullified, because they deem it to be a burden on others (all while implementing policies that increase dependencies and interdependencies and therefore increase the likelihood that someone could be considered a burden on others – a combination which is nothing short of pure evil – they basically make people into burdens, and then seek to kill those who are burdens)