We went through the Mississippi 15-week abortion limits, Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Now, let’s look at the arguments from this week’s Dobbs versus Jackson’s Women Health Organization.

 

The Arguments

I struggled to figure out how to format this whole thing and I decided to focus on the arguments of the lawyers rather than all of the questions from the Justices, though we will look at a couple of the questions and comments. This is because we can get an idea on how they are going to rule and we can see who is an activist on the court and who is actually looking at the precedents.

Now, please understand something. I am biased. I am very anti-abortion.

 

Argument to Overturn Roe and Casey

The lawyer arguing for the Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks is the Mississippi Solicitor General, Scott Stuart. Let’s listen to his opening:

Some things:

1. The statements in the beginning where he says the damage that Roe and Casey have done are correct though they aren’t the first cases that did this. But, the cases are damaging because of the deaths they have caused over the last 50 years.
2. This is an interesting point he brings up. There seems to be this belief that if a woman is in mortal danger by giving birth, she still can’t get an abortion. This is hogwash and always has been.
   • The mother’s life has always been more important than the fetus’s life. Abortion has always been permissible.
   • Even conservative religions like Catholicism and Judaism believe this and permit abortion when the mother’s life is in danger.
3.  All of this is true.
   • • We know for a fact that the baby is a human being at conception.
     • We know that abortion is both psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging to the woman. We just have to look at Kermit Gosnell to know this. Many of his patients were left sterile and a few died.
     • The process of abortion is brutal.
       • The doctor poisons the fetus.
       • Sucks out the brain to collapse the skull.
       • The cuts the fetus into pieces and then sucks out the pieces. This is also a major cause for infection within the woman.
4. This is a very important point.
   • • • • The idea with the Constitution is that decisions like this is left to the people of the state unless it is directly mentioned in the Constitution.
         • Abortion is not mentioned, at all, in the Constitution.
         • Privacy, which is what Roe rides on, is not mentioned in the Constitution.
         • Therefore, it should be up to the people of the state to make the decision on whether abortion is legal, restricted or illegal.
         • I also liked the way he argued for the rights of the fetus and killing the fetus violates his rights to due process and “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”.
5. This is also the great lie of the Left. If Roe and Casey are overturned, abortion will not be banned throughout the country. Quite the opposite for certain states like California, New York or Virginia. Abortion will probably be expanded. In those states you might be able to abort a kid after it is born.

One thing he does not mention in “women’s rights”. This is not an accident. It is not a right if that right harms another. In his argument, he makes very clear the humanity of the baby though I would have liked him to make a more scientific argument (though I am sure that is in his written brief and he only has two minutes for oral arguments).

 

 

Argument to Keep Roe and Casey

The respondent is Julie Rikelman who is the Senior Director of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Let’s Listen to her opening:

Some things:

1. Her first premise is way off here.
   1. The viability standard is a subjective, non-scientific standard. There are children that have survived outside the womb over a month before the viability standard.
   2. The problem with the precedent is that it was unconstitutional.
   3. The forcing of women to “remain pregnant and force birth” is a false argument. The choice was when they decided to have sex and get pregnant. Nothing was being done against their will while getting pregnant.
2. Stare Decisis is a weak argument.
   1. Stare decisis is defined is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. … Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent.
   2. There have been plenty of precedents overturned in spite of stare decisis including Dread Scott to end Jim Crow laws. Why? Because they were evil and previous court cases were wrong which allowed the evil to continue.
   3. But I would say this is her strongest case.
   4. I also want to point out that she talked about “liberty” throughout her argument and not “privacy”. That’s because that is the wording of Section 1 of the XIV Amendment and she knows she has a bunch of textualists in the court.
   5. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong and how long a bad precedent has been around is irrelevant.
3. The argument against this is simple:
   1. Roe and Casey weren’t right. They’re wrong morally, legally and scientifically.
   2. Again, the state is not taking anyone’s liberty away. It’s restoring the liberty of the baby.
   3. Abortion also has physical and emotional risks. Abortion is not safe, especially for the human being who is being terminated.
   4. I love the talk of consequences. Right now, consequences are on the federal government. By overturning Roe and Casey, consequences shift to the woman and man to take responsibility not to get pregnant.
   5. Again:
      1. Not a right when it violates the rights of another (in this case, the fetus).
      2. Not a Constitutional right because it’s not in the Constitution, which is why Roe and Casey are bad precedents.
4. Propel women backwards?
   1. Everyone’s a victim. Women, poor women, she didn’t say women of color probably because Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood was a racist and a eugenicist and that would have opened a can of worms.
   2. What about the baby? Dead is pretty backwards. Notice, the baby is not one of her victims.
   3. Here’s something: Responsibility and consequences for bad decisions does sometimes suck.

Notice she doesn’t address something in this entire argument. She never denies that the fetus is a human being. She arguing about the viability of that human being and that should be the basis of the court’s decision. You hear during abortion protests that the fetus is just a clump of cells. Rikelman doesn’t say that. That does not make for a good argument when your opponent is arguing you’re killing a human being.

In fact, she doesn’t mention the fetus at all in her argument. It’s all women’s rights crap. The fetus is a human being. It is a human being at conception. Rikelman doesn’t argue that. This is the problem with the pro-abortion crowd. They can’t argue any of the facts. She did nothing to convince me of anything.

 

The Justices

Here’s Clarence Thomas asking Rikelman about what argument she’s trying to make.

Some things:

• Thomas scored a huge hit on Rikelman.
• Rikelman seems to be trying to rewrite Roe.
• Roe was about privacy, not liberty. This is a problem for her because justices like Thomas may see the precedent as invalid since the XIV Amendment does not mention privacy.
• Instead of saying, “I don’t know,” she goes on about liberty as if it means privacy.
• She has no answer.

Here’s Justice Sotomayor making an insane comparison and expecting Stuart to answer to insanity.

Some things here:

• I used to think you had to be smart to be on the Supreme Court. I have been corrected. This is an insane assertion. Or just an assertion of the truly stupid.
• Brain death is degenerative and will lead to…wait for it…death.
• A fetus is a developing person. In fact, a human being’s brain develops until the age of 25 when their prefrontal cortex is, finally, fully developed. That’s why people do stupid things at 21.
• Sotomayor has shown herself as a biased, activist judge.
• There is no reason for Stuart to take any of her question seriously. She has already made her choice.
• This also shows how these judges, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, feel that the Constitution can be manipulated.

But, Sotomayor continues with her stupidity, totally missing what her job is. I can’t believe this broad in on the Supreme Court for the rest of her life:

Some things:

• Um…what?
• She has been appointed to the Supreme Court for life so she would be immune to public opinion and politics.
  • Read the Constitution.
  • Read The Federalist Papers.
  • She should be impeached from the court because she believes this.
• Casey and Roe, which is what Stuart argues, were create because of popular opinion and politics. That shouldn’t have happened.
• One thing I want to point out: She muddies the waters between the rights that are actually guaranteed by the Constitution and rights that are permitted by precedence. That is a huge mistake.
  • The only rights that are guaranteed are the ones through the Constitution. These are divine and God-given.
  • Rights through precedence are not rights. They are law that can be overturned.
  • If you want a right to be guaranteed, to be defined as God-given, we must go through the amendment process.
  • Abortion would never make it through the amendment process. It’s been tried.
• This just shows we need term limits for Supreme Court Justices.

Here is Sotomayer continuing to be an idiot. This time, she not only denigrates Stuart’s argument but insults 80% of the United States. So much for giving a crap what the people think.

Some things:

• I love this question. It shows the Left for what they are.
• First off, Stuart made reasonable, moral argument. He never said anything about religion.
• Second, debates about life, philosophically, which is what Sotomayor wants to focus on, does not change the science. That’s telling about how she is going to rule. She’s ignoring the science, which is absolute, and bringing it to a philosophical question, which isn’t. Science says, life starts at conception. Philosophy, at this point, is not even a question. It’s not even a debating point.
• Stuart never made a religious or philosophical argument. It is a scientific argument based on decades of research. That’s why he’s so thrown off at the question.
• It is actually Rikelman that makes the philosophical argument that is based on what we knew in 1993 with Casey.
• Outside of the fact this is a smack at religion (in this case, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which all ban abortion) it equates religion with morality.
• And, it pushes law away from morality which law has a very iffy relationship with morality anyway.
• Unfortunately, I could only answer these questions with questions because this is an insane question:
  • Is all morality based on religion?
  •  If so, with that fictitious separation of Church and State from that misread letter by Thomas Jefferson, does that mean law needs to be completely separated from morality?
• Of course, neither is correct. If so, one could make murder arguably legal because those against murder could be see as moral and, therefore, religious. And we have separation of church and state.
• This question has not been criticized enough. It’s an insane question.

Not the end of insanity when it comes to religion.

Here is Justice Stephen Breyer asking Stuart what atheists have said abortion is bad.

Some things:

• Philosopher and bioethicists? Is this f-ing guy kidding?
• Stuart is basing everything on actual science. Not ethics, not philosophy.

But let’s look at a couple of atheists who touted morality.

How about Friedrich Nietzsche. A humanist. When he said, “God is Dead” in The Gay Science, he wasn’t celebrating God being dead. He was lamenting it. He thought man needed religious morality to keep him from being tyrannical which would have led to the deaths of people.

What other philosopher believed in morality, not necessarily, religious morality? Albert Camus, the Absurdist who broke away from Jean Paul Sartre’s Existentialism. In The Stranger, he said we still have moral responsibility even though there is no moral bounds created by religion.

But, the reality is, Stuart made a scientific argument. He made a Constitutional argument. Religion had nothing to do with it.

Here is Clarence Thomas bringing things back to reality. What’s the law? What is it in the Constitution that makes your summation right?

Some things:

• Thomas is looking for words.
• She has none. She keeps throwing out keywords Thomas might like. One of the words she doesn’t throw out is “privacy”.
• This is weak tea.

Thomas keeps pushing and he shows how lacking the pro-abortion attorney is in knowledge.

Some things:

• Typical Leftist response.
• Thomas asks a specific question. “What Constitution says abortion is Constitutional?”
• Rikelman gives a long-winded word-salad that does not answer his question.
• Thomas, in a few words, rephrases her answer. Is abortion the Constitution guarantees?
• She gives a long worded that abortion is the guarantee in the Constitution.
• Here’s the problem for the pro-abortion litigant: Abortion is not defined in the Constitution.
• There would be no reason for Roe or Casey if it was. I’m sire she’s kicking herself in the ass right now.

 

So, What’s Next?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-dare-you-talk-about-what-a-fetus-wants-whoopi-goldberg-unloads-on-supreme-court-over-abortion-case
https://www.dailywire.com/news/germany-announces-lockdown-for-unvaccinated-people
https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-sotomayor-compares-unborn-babies-to-braindead-people-reacting-to-stimuli
https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-what-specific-right-is-in-the-constitution-that-allows-abortion
https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-kavanaugh-at-abortion-case-arguments-why-should-this-court-be-the-arbiter-rather-than-congress-states-the-people
https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-alito-questions-viability-standard-in-monumental-supreme-court-abortion-case
https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-abortion-protesters-allegedly-take-abortion-pills-outside-of-supreme-court

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/waukesha-parade-suspect-has-long-history-abusing-women
https://www.dailywire.com/news/suspected-waukesha-murderer-was-assessed-top-risk-for-violence-was-released-by-leftist-da-anyway
https://www.dailywire.com/news/waukesha-christmas-parade-suspect-im-being-demonized-dehumanized