Pro Life Interest Should Challenge South Dakota's Anti Abortion Law
Politically the South Dakota legislation is the wise thing to do for pro life as it takes the wind out of the sails of pro-legalized murder advocates claim that Roe v. Wade’s support of legalized murder through abortion is settled law.
It also has a good chance of success if the lawyer’s fighting for the people’s rights to rule themselves is qualified and sufficiently funded.
If you want a bizarre scenario that could help the pro life cause then listen to this one. Pro lifer can challenge the South Dakota law because it does not grant unborn children either equal protection under the law or due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their case would be base on the fact that Roe v. Wade made conditions under which an unborn child is to be considered to be a person but then said that there was no evidence to prove that unborn children fit those conditions. The trick is that there is evidence. One is to establish that an unborn child is in fact a living human being instead of a theoretical human being. To do that you need to call in biologist that will establish that it is a biologic fact that unborn children are alive and human beings from conception on. How can the Supreme Court justify accepting the biological theory of evolution as fact without also accepting the biological fact of that unborn children are human beings. The second point is the Court stated that the law did not treat unborn children as persons. In fact William Blackstone called unborn children after the point of quickening persons and said they had the right to life in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. The Commentaries are important as they were used as a linchpin in Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review for the Supreme Court. I don’t see the Supreme Court declaring their power of Judicial review unconstitutional.. Roe v. Wade itself mentions why quickening was established as the beginning point of human life at the time William Blackstone write the Chronicles and so allows the replacement of the 18th century theory of the beginning of human life with the established biological fact. The last is to explain while unborn children are not treated equally under the law. The answer is that unborn children are considered slaves of their mothers and therefore not citizens of the United States. The Dred Scot decision declares that states have the right to give what benefits they want to non citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment was made law to right the wrongs of the Dread Scott decision and it grants non-citizens equal protection under the law and due process of law. It would be unlawful to strip someone non-citizens of either right just because laws exist that unconstitutionally strip them of those rights.. I used Roe v. Wade as a precedent to overturn the conclusions of Roe v. Wade. I think I am clever but I have had no qualified pro life attorneys review my work so it could be filled with holes.
If successful unborn children would be covered by the same laws as everyone else. If not succesful the South Dakota Law has been upheld be the Supreme Court as constitutional.
It also has a good chance of success if the lawyer’s fighting for the people’s rights to rule themselves is qualified and sufficiently funded.
If you want a bizarre scenario that could help the pro life cause then listen to this one. Pro lifer can challenge the South Dakota law because it does not grant unborn children either equal protection under the law or due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their case would be base on the fact that Roe v. Wade made conditions under which an unborn child is to be considered to be a person but then said that there was no evidence to prove that unborn children fit those conditions. The trick is that there is evidence. One is to establish that an unborn child is in fact a living human being instead of a theoretical human being. To do that you need to call in biologist that will establish that it is a biologic fact that unborn children are alive and human beings from conception on. How can the Supreme Court justify accepting the biological theory of evolution as fact without also accepting the biological fact of that unborn children are human beings. The second point is the Court stated that the law did not treat unborn children as persons. In fact William Blackstone called unborn children after the point of quickening persons and said they had the right to life in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. The Commentaries are important as they were used as a linchpin in Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review for the Supreme Court. I don’t see the Supreme Court declaring their power of Judicial review unconstitutional.. Roe v. Wade itself mentions why quickening was established as the beginning point of human life at the time William Blackstone write the Chronicles and so allows the replacement of the 18th century theory of the beginning of human life with the established biological fact. The last is to explain while unborn children are not treated equally under the law. The answer is that unborn children are considered slaves of their mothers and therefore not citizens of the United States. The Dred Scot decision declares that states have the right to give what benefits they want to non citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment was made law to right the wrongs of the Dread Scott decision and it grants non-citizens equal protection under the law and due process of law. It would be unlawful to strip someone non-citizens of either right just because laws exist that unconstitutionally strip them of those rights.. I used Roe v. Wade as a precedent to overturn the conclusions of Roe v. Wade. I think I am clever but I have had no qualified pro life attorneys review my work so it could be filled with holes.
If successful unborn children would be covered by the same laws as everyone else. If not succesful the South Dakota Law has been upheld be the Supreme Court as constitutional.
posted by Kerwin | 9:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home