Roe v. Wade: A Frontal Assault on the Constitution

The famous 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion was made with no legal precedent or basis in any United States law.  What the court did was raw judicial activism.   The court made law – it did not rule on any existing law.  Here are some of the bizarre issues that the Court ruled as Constitutional:

The unborn has no legal rights

The unborn is not a person

An unborn may be aborted and killed legally up to birth

We don’t know when life begins

The 14th Amendment implicitly includes a right to abortion

I ask anyone to read the Constitution and the 14th Amendment and see if you can find anything remotely close to a right to an abortion.  You cannot find it.   Legal experts  on both sides of the fence agree that Roe was bad law.  Here are just a few examples:

John Hart Ely, a pro-choice legal scholar, wrote in 1973 in the Yale Law Journal that Roe was wrongly decided. Edward Lazarus, a dedicated pro-choicer and former clerk to Roe’s author, says Roe was borderline “indefensible.” Pro-choice Washington Post writer Benjamin Wittes calls Roe “a lousy decision.” Slate columnist William Saletan–who left the Republican Party in 2004 because it was too pro-life–has written that Roe was a sloppy “overreach.” Pro-choice Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen calls Roe “a bad decision.” “Roe was terribly reasoned,” said Scott Powe, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “I think there’s some requirement under the Constitution that if you cannot explain a decision and its relationship with legal materials, it’s not a valid decision.”

Powe, who describes himself as “100 percent pro-choice,” is far from alone in his criticism of Roe. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have made no secret of their revulsion toward Roe on legal grounds.  But what may have been lost in the often shrill battle over abortion is that even people who believe abortion should be legal are uncomfortable with the arguments in Roe.

Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School, asked some of the nation’s foremost constitutional law scholars to imagine how they might have written Roe. The results are compiled in “What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: America’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Most Controversial Decision.” “Rights are most secure when they are supported by legislative enactment,” Balkin told He said he believes the right to abortion would have been better settled if it had been articulated through congressional channels.

You could go on and on how bad this decision was.  The bottom line is that this was a direct assault on our Constitution and judicial activism at its worst.  Judges rule on law on the books, not what they want the law to be, that is the place of the legislature, not judges.

Attorney Susan E. Willis discusses 10 reasons why Roe vs. Wade is such a bad law.  Click here to read it.

President Obama and the Democratic Party in general, are not only pro-choice, but are also against any law banning Partial Birth Abortion; the barbaric procedure depicted in the drawing below of a baby being dismembered in the womb.  One of the most important reason for not voting for politicians who are pro-choice is that they will appoint judges who only agree with them.  If you’ve ever watched a Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearing you’ve seen that no Democrat will ever vote for a pro-life judge.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s