In response to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) announcing last Monday that it will hear a key abortion case rising out of Mississippi, Democrats in the House and Senate magically introduced legislation to codify on a federal level the centralizing and unconstitutional corruption of the 1973 Roe v. Wade SCOTUS ruling. The legislation would, in essence, federally ban any state protections for the unborn.
The court revealed Monday that it has agreed to take up Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns Mississippi’s HB 1510 law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. The case has sparked intense interest because it presents an opportunity for the justices to reconsider Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that forces states to allow abortions.
Some unpacking is necessary here, for while the “Roe” decision has been a key point of contention between pro-life Americans and those who favor the falsely termed “right to choose” (really, not a right, but a choice that takes the life of another human being), the “Roe” decision also has set centralizers against constitutionalists and federalists.
Although commentators often depict “Roe” as forcing states to allow abortions, we can see that states still have passed pro-life legislation, and increasingly so over the past few years. This is because a ruling by a SCOTUS majority does not “wipe out” statutes on state or federal levels. SCOTUS “strike downs” simply signal to lower courts and to police that, should a case similar to a previously ruled SCOTUS case be put back into the legal system, unless there is a change in the makeup of the makeup of the court, such a case likely will be overturned and the suspect let go. This results in local and state police and justice systems opting not to pursue prosecutions in those areas. So, court rulings don’t “strike down” statues, per se, they set precedent that most lower courts will follow unless a lot of time has passed or there has been a sudden change on the higher court level – or a lower court judge has the guts not to follow bad higher court precedent.
This is why the Dems in Congress are pushing to federalize abortion through statute, because they fear that the supposedly “conservative SCOTUS majority might overturn 'Roe'” and that more state legislatures will begin passing pro-life statutes.
And this move by the Dems, if seen through the lens of the Founders, can help folks get a very strong grasp of the concept of federalism that many big government politicians would rather Americans not understand.
On Wednesday, Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, along with Reps. Judy Chu, D-California, Lois Frankel, D-Florida, Ayanna Pressley, D-Massachusetts, and Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, announced the reintroduction of the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA).
And he adds:
The legislation, which has been repeatedly introduced over the past several years without being acted upon, establishes a federal statutory right to perform and obtain abortions, including after fetal viability (under the broad cover of ‘health’), and specifically forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent requirements, and other health and safety regulations, such as admitting privileges.
It also protects so-called ‘webcam’ abortions (i.e., dispensing abortion pills without an in-person doctor’s visit), forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability, and forbids banning particular techniques such as dilation and evacuation (D&E) or ‘dismemberment’ abortions, where unborn babies are literally ripped apart in the womb and removed from the uterus limb by limb.
The rhetoric of the politicians proposing the legislation is stomach-churning, and Freiburger supplies that, as well:
’This week’s news out of the Supreme Court was an urgent call to action: reproductive rights are under direct, imminent attack. Our bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, would protect against unconstitutional laws like Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban — laws that attack people’s freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and which directly contradict decades of Supreme Court precedent,’ the lawmakers claimed in a press release. ‘Our legislation reaffirms what the Supreme Court established 50 years ago: access to abortion is a fundamental right. We look forward to formally reintroducing our legislation with the support of our colleagues in the coming weeks.’
Of course, one can quibble with Freiburger’s use of the common parlance “lawmakers” for politicians who, on a daily basis, work contrary to Natural Law and who are, really, just statute-writers and gangland thugs, but in his provision of the political rhetoric, he has offered us one of the key rhetorical misdirections employed by collectivists.
Specifically, the act of killing a pre-born baby is not “freedom to make decisions about their own bodies,” because it’s SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY that is being killed. That cannot be denied. Upon conception, the fetus is a distinct human that is being, it has distinct DNA that is separate from that of the mother and father, and it is on the great continuum of life that begins at conception and is supposed to end naturally. When another human ends that life, the term is “killing another person” not “decisions about their own bodies.”
And this brings to light the final major lesson that can be derived from this Democrat move.
Simply put, the “constitutional” power to handle the definition of and punishment for capital murder crimes is not a federal purview. It is left up to the states. Only if a crime or criminal travels over state borders does the federal government have a say, and, typically, that is merely a matter of extradition back to the jurisdiction in which the original crime was committed.
And if a state has laws that punish people for murder, the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that those laws must protect all people equally.
Including the pre-born, who must be protected just like newborns if a state says that newborns CAN’T BE MURDERED.
As Freiburger notes, the Dems have plenty of votes in the House to pass the bill, but it likely will be too hot for even many RINO Republicans to join the Dems for passage in the Senate.
Yet, that does not stop us from recognizing the offensive anti-life, anti-constitutional, anti-federalist attitude of the left.
President Joe Biden is already on the record in favor of codifying Roe’sdictates in federal law, whether through the WHPA or similar legislation such as the Freedom of Choice Act. But whether he will get the opportunity to sign it into law is another matter.
Indeed, and it’s a matter of life and death.