Even if Roe Is Overturned, It’s Not Enough
4,549 Views
Comments (28)
Share (34)
Print
TikTok Moderator Sues App for Trauma
Chicago PD Warns City of Police Shortage
Consumer Prices up 5.7% in 2021
TikTok May Be Primary Reason for Trans Craze Among Youth
Even if Roe Is Overturned, It’s Not Enough
4,549 Views
Comments (28)
Share (34)
Print
I Prayed
have prayed
I don’t agree that abortion decisions should be returned to the states.
Merely going back to the way things were before Roe, with each state sovereign over whether and at what point to restrict abortion, would just substitute many groups of human beings, albeit elected instead of appointed, making these decisions instead of one group of human beings.
Instead of fighting one battle it would mean having to fight 50 different battles.
We the People, not to mention philosophers, religious proponents, lawyers, doctors, mothers, have no right to guess about, legislate, or make these weighty life and death decisions. Governments at any level do not have that right. Individuals do not have that right.
Abortion is unconstitutional–because of what is being aborted.
A person.
It is not enough to overturn Roe. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark civil rights case challenging the “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the Court’s unanimous ruling. It did not directly overrule 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson but effectively nullified it.
In Brown, the justices recognized that the original ruling was egregiously wrong. They set aside stare decisis and declared segregation itself to be a violation of the 14th Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
This is the goal we must pray toward—not just to overrule Roe, but render it and all subsequent rulings that have been based on it–null and void as a precedent. Overturn stare decisis. Have the Court declare stare decisis inapplicable and irrelevant.
Recognize the personhood of that which is in the womb, and grant unborn children all the rights and privileges to which the Constitution entitles them.
Can the “suggestion of personhood” be established? Science has established it. Technology has revealed and demonstrated it.
The Justices for Roe v. Wade did not have—and knew they did not have–sufficient scientific and medical technology to prove the personhood of what is in the womb.
We do.
And we have.
It’s a person.
On the basis of science, as demonstrated by modern technology, the justices ruling on Roe v. Wade—and on Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not yet have, we can declare that those rulings, and all cases whose rulings derive from them, can and should be overruled and nullified as unworthy of serving as precedents.
“Personhood” in our documents: Preamble to the Constitution
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence)
The Preamble to our Constitution points out that the right to life is inalienable. It’s not earned, it is granted us by a higher power. It has not come from government or each other. So government rulings and our mother’s personal whims and inconvenience cannot take it away. It is a solemn right to be respected and the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness follow and are contingent on it.
By implication, the Constitution acknowledges personhood and the protection of the person in the womb. It applies to those who are “born” as persons. But if those who are born as persons were found to have had personhood at conception, it would apply to them, too.
The very first sentence of the Constitution declares that the document’s central purpose includes the aim to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
As Glenn Beck notes, “Who are our posterity, if not our unborn children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren?” How will they inherit these blessings if they, our descendants, no longer exist or have any hope of existing?
The Parallel with Slavery: The Emancipation Proclamation
Our first Civil War was a battle to win freedom and dignity for a category of human beings in this country who had been treated as sub-human and expendable, as property owned by slave masters. In declaring slaves free, President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation acknowledged them as “persons” with intrinsic worth, nobody’s property.
The 48-year fight for the unborn is a parallel battle for a category of human beings in our country who have been treated as sub-human and expendable, as property owned by their mothers. This Second Civil War is a war for life. In declaring them “persons,” we acknowledge not only their right to life but their intrinsic worth.
From the magnificent text of the Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863:
By the President of the United States of America: A Proclamation.
“…That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State…shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.” (Italics added)
President Reagan’s Proclamation of the Personhood of the Unborn Child
On January 14, 1988, President Ronald Reagan recognized the personhood of the unborn in another magnificent Proclamation of Personhood. It reads in part:
“…Our nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically at odds with our history, our heritage, and our concepts of justice. This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land….
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death…”
The Precedent of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
Roe v. Wade ruling gave us the key to its own reversal: the establishment of personhood: “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment …. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellee’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Roe v. Wade, January 22,1973)
The Roe v. Wade verdict was vulnerable at its writing—and Justice Blackmun recognized this when he admitted that the suggestion of personhood might be able to be established in the future and bring about the ruling’s “collapse.”
Advances in medicine and science since both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, along with all those cases since then using those two as precedent, have conclusively established the personhood of the unborn child. We now know that what is in the womb is alive, human, a baby, “real,” and has intrinsic worth from a specific point–not an arbitrary point of viability but at the moment of conception.
Pregnancy is a continuum from fertilization. There are no other indications of viability, just landmarks. The baby entrusted to its “child palace” (as the womb or uterus is called in Chinese) for nurture and protection will need that nurture and protection throughout pregnancy and even beyond natural birth.
We now know the point (highlighted in Roe v Wade) at which the “separate and distinct” interests of a woman and the separate person in her womb become compelling—at conception. The health of the mother may become at risk at some point in pregnancy but at every point in pregnancy the life of a baby in the womb of an abortion-minded mother is at risk.
The abortion of “persons” in the womb is the taking of a human life and is egregiously evil, only justifiable when both the life of the mother and the baby conflict. A woman’s body, containing the body of a tiny separate person, does not by that fact have any right to her own liberty that supersedes the right to life of that separate little person.
It is time for the case for unlimited abortion to “collapse” and be nullified, for Roe to go.
It is time to make abortion unthinkable.
What do you think about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned or nullified? We invite you to share in the comments.
Read the companion article–Dobbs: The Elephant in the Courtroom.
Writer Jessica Renshaw is an intercessor and author of GIANNA, ABORTED AND LIVED TO TELL ABOUT IT, the true story of a baby born alive during a legal saline abortion (Focus on the Family, 1995, Gold Medallion finalist) and COMPELLING INTERESTS: A NOVEL ABOUT ABORTION FROM THE HEARTS OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES.
Comments (28)
Share (34)
Post A Prayer
Print
I Prayed
have prayed
Post A Prayer
Related Content
Most Americans Oppose Abortion on Demand, Poll Says
I Prayed
The Right to Life Is Indeed ‘Due North’
I Prayed
Partner with Us
Intercessors for America is the trusted resource for millions of people across the United States committed to praying for our nation. If you have benefited from IFA's resources and community, please consider joining us as a monthly support partner. As a 501(c)3 organization, it's through your support that all this possible.
Comments
Great. thank you for writing this artile.
I believe that Roe vs. Wade should be nullified instead of just turned over. When you try to root out a terrible disease like cancer, you don’t just want to put in remission if you have the chance to erase it completely. We want to total and absolute victory in the area of abortion so that it can never raise its ugly head again.
Yes. Right on.
Good objective. Good to pray to God for the necessary revival that will change minds about life – from God.
Personhood is becoming the unarguable truth of the nature of the “fetus”.
Lacking complete success with that best outcome, I am warm to the idea that individual states may have freedom to rule as they wish and take the consequences.
Nullified
if the unborn are not persons, why is a criminal who kills a woman who is pregnant guilty of two deaths.
The State has a compelling interest to protect all children regardless of level of development, ability or disability, economic or social status, race or ethnicity, prognosis or parents. Every child has a right to live the one life she’s been given, just as each of us do. Liberty acknowledged in the Constitution of the United States specifically extends to our Posterity, to those who come after us, to our children. Purposefully taking the life of a child is never necessary. Killing one life does not save another. While it may not always be successful, both lives of mother and child may attempt to be saved, and neither needs to be purposefully killed. Children, however conceived, are nevertheless children. Sensitive to touch as early as 7 weeks on our eyelids and the palms of our hands, with a heartbeat at 3 weeks, and the desire to live, as all of us do, how can we deny others what we desire for ourselves? Killing children has never helped any mother, any family, or any society. Oh, maybe an initial relief from responsibility or an opportunity in career or education, but in the long term, every woman who has been victimized by those profiting off killing her child has suffered, whether physically, psychologically (as seen through her intense anger), spiritually, emotionally, or socially in ways those who profit off killing children are not willing to admit, despite multiple studies showing its ill-effects on women. Ripping a child from his mother through barbaric means also rips the sanctity of womanhood. There is nothing empowering about it. Whatever poor circumstances she may find herself in is not remedied by taking her child from her. If homeless, she remains homeless. If poor, she remains poor. However, a child can bring so much more into a woman’s life, those intangibles that are not money or career driven, such as joy, innocence, and purpose, along with the motivation to succeed, to push beyond her perceived limitations to provide a better life for her child, and ultimately a better life for herself. Until fifty years ago, that has propelled our society into emotional and spiritual health and a societal consciousness that included love for humanity and one another. Killing a living child takes away everything that child would become in contributing to society – a new invention or discovery, a cure, a kind helping hand to a neighbor, a smile on the street, a little boy on his bike. Every child deserves a birthday. And if unwanted, there are literally thousands of couples who would love to adopt a baby. There are Safe Haven laws where babies can be safely and anonymously left to be cared for by those who want children. We are too advanced of a society to continue the practice of sacrificing children. We have clean water, food, and plenty of room in our homes and our hearts to accept every little one who wants to come into the world for a chance at the same life and liberty we all want to enjoy. The State recognizes that while we each are free to choose our behaviors – such as those that will, or may, result in pregnancy – we also accept that there are natural consequences to those behaviors, and we do no one any favors by trying to eliminate the consequences. Primarily, the consequence of a child is a good one that brings hope, light, and joy into the world. And without that child, we are each the worst for it. Every woman has a choice of when, where, and with whom she engages in those behaviors that naturally result in a child. When she doesn’t have that choice, taking the life of the child does not undo what’s been done to her, and only further victimizes and entraps her while enabling and not holding her perpetrator accountable. We do no favors to women by holding ourselves to a lesser standard than men in saying we can kill our children but a man may not. Aren’t we as women better than that? Don’t we deserve better than that? True liberty and equality means that we don’t have to sacrifice the opportunity of motherhood for the possibilities of pursuing other financial or personal goals, any more than a man is not required to sacrifice fatherhood to pursue them. For those struggling, there are resources available to help a woman in every way pursue reaching for her dreams at the same time as carrying her child to term. Often, women find that it’s those unplanned moments, those surprises in our lives, that are the greatest source of growing our own love and discovery, as women, that we truly can have it all. We don’t need to sacrifice our children for ourselves. We have enough love in our hearts to accept and nurture a child who will someday be our legacy on this earth when we leave. Living for ourselves is too small a thing when we as women have the greatest opportunity and larger freedom to be a part of bringing a new life into the world who has never lived before and will never live again. Any line we draw where we suddenly protect a child – but not before – is arbitrary and moveable. But when we welcome and cherish every human – great or small – we ultimately cherish ourselves and make our land a safer, better place for everyone.
Thank you for this information, I didn’t know personhood existed in the original written case.
I have one comment. If a pregnancy threatens a mother’s heath (so RARE), doctors work to save the baby and the mother. That argument is a smokescreen like so many other pro death arguments
We have so many parallels with Israel, they sacrificed their children to other gods and God had to punish them for their terrible sin.
Could it be that our Nation is in the state its in because of the millions that have been slathered ?
God in heaven have mercy on America and send revival . May we ALL PRAY!
Thank you for this insightful article. The National Pro-life Alliance has for several years now been promoting the “Life at Conception Act” (H.R. 1011, H.R. 877, S. 99). The bill is sponsored by Senator Paul and has 17 cosponsors. I believe this is the way to finally end abortion in this Country. I pray that this bill will become law and that it is God’s will for this to be done soon. I pray pastors in this Nation will begin to make the “Life at Conception Act” a priority for their congregations and that IFA will also begin to focus on this solution.
Who will they come for next? The disabled, the mentally challenged, the elderly, the Christians, and anyone else who disagrees with them and their agenda. We are already seeing businesses not able to function fully or closing due to not having workers. The globalist agenda stated on the pillars in Georgia(?) state that the optimum population in the world is 500 million. They would remove somehow 6.5 billion people from the earth. Even their own lifestyle could not be maintained at those levels, not to mention the horrible atrocities that would bring about their “dream utopia”.
If this is a better way to handle it, I agree with it. As long as we do not have this wrong act anymore. Thank you for this information.
The baby in the womb has the same Constitutional right to the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness that the woman carrying the human does. Whether you kill a human inside the womb or outside the womb it is still murder. Birth Control pills started the mindset of having babies WHEN you wanted them NOT when you were BLESSED with them. If you do not want to have babies to love and protect in a family/marriage relationship then be disciplined enough to refrain at that time of the month from marital love-making. Shedding the blood of your baby is NOT birth control.
I think roe v wade should be nullified!
Never to show its ugly head again! In JESUS name!
Amen!!!
I think this is a wonderful argument ..one that most of of have missed simply from being so focused on the issue of abortion being over turned ..thank you for this inspirational comment I will certainly be praying in this way.
I totally agree that Roe vs Wade along with the rest, should be nullified. The constitution states that clearly. A baby in the womb is a person. All people born and those yet in the womb have been miraculously created by God.
I agree that merely overturning this terrible, Ungodly
I agree that merely overturning Roe V. Wade will not be enough to change people’s hearts regarding this sanctity of life issue.
I agree that merely overturning Roe v. Wade will not be enough to deal with the abortion issue. While it would be a big step forward in protecting the rights of the unborn, it would not be sufficient to change people’s hearts. This is where the true change needs to happen. Dear Lord, please, pour out Your Holy Spirit upon ALL people, as You tell us that You will do in these last days. We desperately need a revival in America. Too many people don’t know right from wrong. Satan has done a work in the land that we love. The really good news, is, that You are greater than the enemy, and have the authority to change people’s hearts. Please, let it come to pass. In Jesus’ mighty, holy name.
Even if Roe is overturned, there is still a 50 year swoon of abortion being “normal” and “settled law” that our society has to be weaned off from. Americans need to be reeducated regarding how what is in the woman’s womb is not merely “stuff,” or just a “product of conception,” but an actual genuine formed human person, as recent science of these last 50 years has so effectively demonstrated.
I agree! This is well said!
The overturning of Roe v. Wade and returning the issue of abortion to the states will simply encourage politicians in the ultra-liberal states — like California, where I live — to not only continue the endorsement of the murder of children in their mothers’ womb, but to invite, welcome, and use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to make the trek here — from the red conservative states in which they live — to end the lives of their children. Our governor, Gavin Newsom, wants to make California an abortion sanctuary. If the evil of abortion is not completely ended and made illegal, it will continue — perhaps in greater numbers — in states like California, where the politicians have no regard for the dignity of human life from womb to tomb.
The same ones that support abortion are the same ones that support this “vaccine” mandate..All are in favor of DEPOPULATION. This is totally against Gods word..Genesis 1:28..
The Constitution should be clarified so as to distinctly establish that humans are persons from the point of conception. Declare personhood from conception. At least two before me had the task of experientially declaring personhood from conception. I do not know who they are, but I hope they return to the fight for life. As I speak out, others are more willing to share their story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgOSftPi4a4
This can only grow, but only as the Holy Spirit gives boldness for us to fear God more than the mockings of mere mortals.
I truly believe Roe v. Wade should be nullified. I have always felt that there are too many birth control methods on the market to use without taking a human life after not using birth control. Too many were using abortion as a birth control method. I pray that every child gets his/her chance at life as was planned.
The last full paragraph in this article states the only reason why an abortion is justifiable: “ only justifiable when both the life of the mother and the baby conflict.”.
Dr. Levantino differs as a medical professional and former abortionist, he states that when the mom’s life is in danger the baby must be delivered, never is there a reason to kill the baby in the womb. Furthermore, he states that sometimes the baby dies after being delivered but that is up to God, not man who has no authority to kill the baby. Please look him and I hope this sheds more information on why abortion is NEVER justifiable.
Irene Armendariz-Jackson… I could not agree more! My entire way of thinking on abortion was changed 7 years ago when our second granddaughter was born at 24 weeks! Premies, as they are known. But our premie was a complete whole little girl. Despite weighing only 1 1/2 pounds she was COMPLETE. When we were putting the calls out for prayer to friends and family a lifetime friend made the comment to me, and I quote, “ and to think they abort them at that stage!” To this day 7 years later that statement still rocks me! And that little tiny baby girl is now 7 years old… is a vibrant, energetic little girl in grade school and you would never know that she had such a rocky start. So, I agree with you. . . It’s time to take ‘ justifiable’ out of the abortion talk!
I agree, but I have these questions:
1. How do we address the 14th amendment, which uses the word “born”?
2. How do we address pharma, which profits from hormonal birth control (eg, the pill), which aborts fertilized eggs? And how do we convince women and men who rely in n such birth control?
3. How do we defeat S 1975 in the Senate? Because if The Women’s Health Protection Act is passed, it won’t matter what the Supreme Court says. I wrote a press release about S 1975 quoting Dr. Kathi Aultman, former abortionist, and Jennifer Milbourn, abortion survivor. Blog dot MybodyMyworship
Thank you for your press release about S1975, Cheryl!