E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, March 24, 2014

A Fourteenth Amendment "right" to abortion?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

I sometimes wonder if there is hidden text in the Constitution of these United States that is written in invisible ink, or if there were portions of the Constitution that have never been made available to anyone other than the judicial branch.

That would be a charitable interpretation of a recent decision declaring that restrictions on abortion in Arkansas "impermissibly infringes a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability." The uncharitable interpretation would be that the judge was abusing her authority to legislate from the bench.

So let's examine the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. The relevant portion of the text establishes:

  • 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.

You will notice that nowhere in the four provisions quoted above is the "right" to have a child killed in the womb established. The "due process" clause has nothing to do with abortion; it merely requires that a process be followed before the state can act against someone. If anything, the equal protection clause would make legalized abortion unconstitutional by denying unborn persons equal protection under murder laws.

Politically and legally, the Arkansas ban was a risk because it went farther than the bans on abortion at twenty weeks that have been very controversial - though they should not have been controversial at all. I doubt that pro-life legislators in Arkansas had any real expectation that the ban would not be struck down, but that it would instead be another opportunity to legally chip away at Roe v. Wade.

But what it does do is allow us to re-examine the flawed legal argument used to throw out bans on abortion in all fifty states. Much like professional wrestling matches, the outcome of Roe v. Wade was predetermined. The justices twisted and shaped the text of the Constitution to make it fit the result they wanted, instead of allowing the text of the Constitution to determine the legality of state bans and restrictions on abortion. Furthermore, because of the court's absurd obsession with "precedent," the decision was allowed to stand when an intellectually honest reading of the Constitution would see it overturned.

The problem, ultimately, is that the Supreme Court has been packed with "justices" who are rebels against the rule of law. This is why every major decision these days is seen through a political lens instead of a legal lens, establishing this nation as a judicial oligarchy instead of a constitutional republic. That is a much bigger problem for our country in the long run than one terrible decision from forty-one years ago.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.


At March 27, 2014 at 7:18 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"I sometimes wonder if there is hidden text in the Constitution of these United States that is written in invisible ink, or if there were portions of the Constitution that have never been made available to anyone other than the judicial branch."

Doubtful, but there are clearly parts that "conservatives" can't read, like the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and the 14th's provision for slashing congressional representation of any state the obstructs minority suffrage. Wouldn't it be great if those provisions were enforced for once? Then again, they have similar selective blindness when it comes to scripture so, again, no surprise.

At March 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Fascinating that you got all four of your points from the first of five sections in the amendment, carefully ignoring two that "conservatives" constantly harp on and obstruct:

"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." [As when Republicans manufacture repeated economic crises in Washington.]

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." [As when "conservatives" claim civil rights legislation is "unconstitutional."

Let the ideological cherry-picking begin!