Roe v. Wade Is Not Only Perverse And Evil, But It’s Obsolete

Before I begin, let me elaborate that what I mean by “obsolete” is not that I think it ought to be re-written or updated by any stretch of the imagination. I want that damned thing out of U.S. law books and every practicing abortionist in this country thrown in jail for the genocide that they willingly and knowingly perform day in and day out, with Planned Parenthood thrown into the dustbin of history alongside the KKK and forever marred as an utterly evil, soulless organization. What I mean by “obsolete” is that the language it uses in supporting a woman’s “right” to abortion is no longer enough to try to justify it.
 
Allow me to explain. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear today a case considering whether or not a Louisiana abortion law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges (the ability of a doctor to admit a patient to a nearby hospital) for hospitals within 30 miles of an abortion clinic is constitutional. The reason for this is that abortionists are currently not required to admit patients into a hospital and can simply perform an abortion pretty much immediately. Wouldn’t you know it, pro-murder people find trouble with this and believe it interferes with a woman’s “right” to kill her own baby.
 
The Court, according to Breitbart News, “will also consider whether abortion businesses have the legal right to file lawsuits that challenge abortion health and safety laws in the name of their own abortion patients.”
 
The Illinois Right to Life (IRL) is among many pro-life organizations that have filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court. IRL’s program director, Dr. Steven Jacobs, wrote the brief for the organization. He told Breitbart News:
 
“Most briefs have argued that abortion organizations and clinics shouldn’t have standing to sue, but our brief is among the briefs of the Senators and Congressmen arguing that Roe v. Wade should be re-examined.”
 
“While they argue that the undue burden standard has been found unworkable, we argue that legal, scientific, and social developments show that the factual underpinnings of Roe have so changed as to have made it obsolete and argue for the constitutional rights of fetuses.”
 
What the good doctor is getting to is that the language used by Roe to justify abortion, specifically about how ambiguous the definition of “person” was at the time (1973), is utterly obsolete in this day and age for a variety of reasons.
 
As Jacobs explained, there is scientific consensus regarding the point at which life begins. That’s right, unlike the ridiculous climate change “consensus” of 97% or whatever the figure was, there actually is a REAL consensus among biologists about when life begins.
 
You see, according to Jacobs, “Roe dismissed Texas’ argument that fetuses had rights because there was no consensus on when life begins in 1973 and fetuses were not recognized as persons in most legal contexts, back then. Today, we know there is a scientific consensus that shows a human’s life begins at fertilization and fetal homicide laws show that most states recognize fetuses as human persons at fertilization.”
 
The argument Roe had made about a fetus not being a person is that the 14th Amendment did not clearly define a person (though I have talked about this in the past and argue that it still protects human fetuses). However, since 1973, scientific advancements have been made that clearly show the humanity of a person in the womb. We have sonograms, both in 2D and 3D, that show us a live feed of the baby in the womb. We have proven that a fetus can feel pain and scream when it is being aborted. If you remember, back in March of 2018, I wrote an article about someone I considered to be evil incarnate, Leah Torres, an abortionist who said she transects “the cord first so there’s really no opportunity [to scream].” They don’t scream because she DOESN’T LET THEM, not because they have a physical inability to do so (provided they have a larynx).
 
But we know that they feel pain beginning at the 20th week of conception, maybe even a bit before (some say roughly around 18 weeks). Abortion is murder and science has proven it, but people reject the science they don’t like for their personal feelings or benefit where it applies.
 
Back in 2019, Jacobs authored a bombshell of a study that found 80% of Americans believe biologists should decide the question of when life begins. Well, among more than 5,500 biologists (a massive sample size), 96% of them affirmed that life begins at fertilization, or conception.
 
I wonder if the Left, who apparently loves scientific consensus, would drop their evil arguments for abortion upon finding this out. Actually, I don’t wonder that at all because they would not. Abortion is a big political issue for them and it helps them out in some cases. They are trying to normalize it and justify it, even when increasing scientific evidence showing that fetuses are human piles up. But there is no mistaking it: Roe v. Wade should be overturned on moral, just and scientific grounds.
 
Jacobs continued in his comments:
 
“Since Roe said that abortion rights collapse if it is shown that fetuses are persons (p. 29 of the brief), since Justices have said that fetuses would have rights if it is shown that fetuses are humans (p. 29 of the brief), and since Planned Parenthood v. Casey said that the Court would have to overturn Roe if a change to the facts robbed it of its original justification (p. 8 of the brief) – fetuses’ constitutional rights should be recognized and Roe should be updated or overturned.”
 
Jacobs also summarized: “things have changed since fetuses were not recognized as biological humans at fertilization or legal persons in 1973.”
 
Jacobs also observed that situations have changed for women since the 70s. “The Court was told that ‘a woman, because of her pregnancy, is often not a productive member of society. She cannot work. She cannot hold a job. She’s not eligible for welfare. She cannot get unemployment compensation’ (p. 6 of the brief). However, recent legislation and government programs have addressed many of those issues (p. 23-24 of the brief) and women can give their children up for adoption or use the protection of safe haven laws to leave their infant at a police station or a fire station.”
 
Legislation like the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows working mothers to take maternity leave, being paid in full, and take care of their children in that time period. Women have plenty of financial and other abilities to take care of their children, and even if they still feel they cannot afford a child, giving children up for adoption is also an alternative. Simply put, there is no medical, financial or social reason for a mother to kill her own child.
 
If Roe were to be a court decision today, there would be absolutely no reason for the Court to say it is constitutional. There is no medical reason to say that a fetus is not human, as science has proven that it is and that its personhood lies under the personhood described by the 14th Amendment. There is no social or financial reason to allow for abortion given the advantages women have in those areas in this day and age, as well as the options apart from killing the baby.
 
It is no person’s right to kill another, unless for self-defense. When an abortionist aborts a fetus, he or she is committing murder. When a woman goes to an abortion clinic seeking to abort her child, she is trying to get someone to kill her baby. When someone argues in favor of abortion, they advocate for the genocide of millions of children in the womb.
 
Roe v. Wade is evil, should be overturned and be remembered with the same horrified and disgusted scorn as we view the Dredd Scott decision, if not more.
 
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.”