Leftist Judge Makes The Dumbest Arguments For Overturning Abortion Ban

This past week, a Mississippi Obama-appointed judge, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves of Mississippi’s Southern District, struck down Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban claiming it was unconstitutional.
 
The judge wrote, upon reviewing the decision for documentation, that “there is no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability (which he says begins at 23 weeks after conception), to justify a ban on abortions… The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.”
 
He went on to rip the state legislature, saying the efforts to ban abortion are “pure gaslighting”: “Its leaders are proud to challenge Roe but choose not to lift a finger to address the tragedies lurking on the other side of the delivery room, such as high infant and maternal mortality rates. No, legislation like H.B. 1510 (the law he struck down) is closer to the old Mississippi – the Mississippi bent on controlling women and minorities.”
 
Beyond that, he even argues that he finds it “sadly ironic” that men, himself included, “are determining how women may choose to manage their reproductive health…”
 
Boy am I gonna have fun ripping this guy to shreds.
 
First of all, and what really should be the driving point of any abortion debate: abortion is unconstitutional. Interestingly enough, both sides of the argument could try to make a case for their side using the 14th Amendment.
 
Here’s what the 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
 
What pro-abortion people will point to is the beginning: “All persons born…”. However, that alone does not mean that abortion is constitutional. To argue this means that if you kill a child inside a woman’s womb outside of abortion, then using this argument, one could argue that they did nothing wrong. And yet, when a person kills a pregnant woman, laws dictate that that counts as a double-homicide. But why if the 14th Amendment says that such a person is not a citizen of the United States or within its jurisdiction? Because it’s still a human being. And that’s what pro-life people point to as the problem with the Left’s argument: it’s still a human being.
 
The part of the 14th Amendment that pro-life people point to is: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
 
It doesn’t say “any person born”, or “any citizen” as defined earlier in the amendment. It just says “person”. Personhood is only attributed to human beings. And a person within the womb is a human being. Therefore, the 14th Amendment says that the State shall not deprive any human being of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. And that is where we argue that abortion is unconstitutional. Because it very clearly is. The beginning part only applies to citizenship. It says persons born in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. (except for obvious exceptions such as a foreign government employee’s wife having a child in the U.S. doesn’t make that child a citizen of the country, and such an exception could arguably be extended to illegal immigrants who are under the jurisdiction of their home countries). But when it comes to abortion, that’s not a solid argument at all. Particularly since the amendment makes it clear that all PERSONS shall not be deprived of LIFE.
 
So that’s the first thing I wanted to point out. The second thing I want to point out is the irony in the judge saying it’s sadly ironic that men, including himself, were determining abortion laws. Why is it ironic from my point of view? Because in 1973, the Supreme Court was composed entirely of men. So the same gender that this judge says should probably not be doing anything to decide abortion cases is the same gender that decided Roe v. Wade.
 
But finally, and perhaps one of the biggest points I wanted to make here, apart from settling the unconstitutionality of abortion itself, is the ludicrous comments from the judge that more readily characterize Margaret Sanger and the abortion industry than it does “old Mississippi” (which depending on what period of time you’re talking about, has also been ruled by Democrats in the past).
 
The judge says such legislation, and thus anyone that supports it, is “bent on controlling women and minorities.”
 
Margaret Sanger once wrote in Birth Control Review: “More children from the fit; less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control.” She also wrote an article titled: “America Needs a Code for Babies,” in which she wrote: “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for fatherhood… No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.” And she also wrote a letter to one of her associates named Clarence Gamble, where she explained her reason for hiring black ministers to be her ambassadors to the black community. This is what she wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
 
That, combined with the fact that many (roughly 79%) of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are within walking distance of black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and you can’t help but think Sanger was a horrible human being, even by this judge’s standards.
 
It’s not us pro-lifers who wish to “control women and minorities”. It was Sanger that literally suggested that women not be allowed to have children without a permit, limiting them to only one child, and said to her cohorts that their goal was the extermination of black people. It’s Planned Parenthood, the organization that Sanger founded, that prioritizes abortions for minorities.
 
So for this judge to be making these arguments is entirely asinine and wrong. He is wrong about the constitutionality of abortion, wrong about what the Constitution says regarding abortion (which is nothing, by the way), wrong about his idea that men shouldn’t be influencing such abortion laws, and wrong about just which side of the argument intends on controlling people.
 
Considering all of these things, I cannot say I’m surprised that this is an Obama-appointed judge. Much like the others, this one has zero knowledge of the law of the United States, and only seeks to write it in favor of his Leftist agenda.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“’Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!