Immediately after Friday’s ruling came down overturning Roe v. Wade, the hysteria train left the station and it’s still going strong. From claims of democracy being under attack to calls from at least one Congressional Democrat to “defy the Supreme Court” and start ignoring the rule of law, the liberal hysterics over the Dobbs ruling have run the gamut.
The most prevalent argument seems to be that the Supreme Court has “taken away” a fundamental right from Americans, something it has never done before. That isn’t true, of course, the Court has curtailed and changed rights since its inception, that’s what it does.
The underlying premise, however, that abortion is somehow a “right” within the constitution is where the argument goes wrong. Abortion has never been a constitutional right as the Roe v. Wade decision was a purely political decision made by an activist court, not a decision rooted in constitutional law. If the Roe decision were to have been correctly decided, it would’ve been shot down from day one leaving authority in the hands of the states.
Back in 1973, proponents of abortion should’ve approached their quest differently in the legislature rather than the courts. Letting the Supreme Court make up laws and rights out of nothing leaves them open to being revoked or corrected, as liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg often remarked about Roe. She was an abortion proponent but understood the Roe decision was a terrible legal precedent and built on legal quicksand.
As John Daniel Davidson writes in The Federalist, the decision on Roe and the claims about women no longer having full and equal rights are the same arguments used to justify slavery during the days of Dred Scott:
It is not the first time Democrats have asserted absolute constitutional rights that for their vindication require the total abnegation of rights or even personhood of entire classes of people. The modern Democratic Party’s stance on abortion rights is almost indistinguishable from its antebellum stance on the constitutionality of slaveowner rights.
Prior to the Civil War amendments, Democrats asserted that the inherent rights of white men, not just property rights but all of them, required the complete denial of the rights of black Americans. Today, Democrats assert that the inherent rights of women require the complete denial of the rights of the unborn.
…
The exact same thing can be said of today’s pro-abortion Democrats. They believe that the denial of all rights to the unborn is integral to what they understand to be women’s constitutionally protected rights, without which they will cease to be citizens with equal rights as their male counterparts.
In other words, an unborn child in the womb with a beating heart must be dehumanized, like a slave, in order to ensure that the “right” to terminate that unborn life remains intact.
Once the child in the womb gets rights, like that of an enslaved person, then legally it can no longer be ignored under the law. The modern-day Democratic Party is running on a platform of dehumanizing unborn babies up to the ninth month of pregnancy. They’re not “human” until they come out a take a breath, a truly preposterous and monstrous claim absent human decency, morality, and void of scientific understanding.
To be on the side of abortion is to be on the wrong side of human history. Democrats like comparing the United States to Europe. One thing they don’t like comparing is how much more stringent many European abortion laws are compared to this country. Some European countries outlaw the practice altogether, while others take a more liberal approach, but still within limits on the time frame, such as 15 weeks, for example.
As the author continues, it’s Democrats that seem intent on fighting a civil war to ensure unborn American citizens of all genders and ethnicities are deprived of equal rights in the womb:
We should rejoice in the end of Roe, but we should also be realistic about what lies ahead. It took a civil war and three constitutional amendments to correct the Supreme Court’s error in Dred Scott. This time it took 60 million unborn dead before the Supreme Court corrected the error of Roe.
In the coming days and weeks, expect Democrats to sound the same notes of secession their forebears sounded. A constitutional order that vindicates the rights of the unborn is not a constitutional order they want to be a part of. We will hear the same arguments we heard in the 1850s and 60s, but instead of objecting to the emancipation of black Americans they will object to the emancipation of the unborn. Understand what this means. The last time Democrats openly made these kind of arguments, war soon followed.
Democrats have quickly become the party with the most extreme position on abortion. Unfettered access to end a human life up until the moment of birth, and nothing less.
Most Americans land somewhere in the middle, allowing limited access to abortion up to a point but recognizing the unborn child is a living, growing human life that deserves protecting. Laws won’t fix the cultural rot that has allowed this view to pervade the mindset of many, but perhaps it will help start to change the argument and force abortion proponents to defend the barbaric practice for what it is.
With scientific advancement and understanding, it becomes more and more difficult to dehumanize unborn babies and continue to allow them to be slaughtered without protection or due process.
