by Allan E. Parker, the President of The Justice Foundation, and Phillip Jauregui, J.D., the President of Judicial Action Group, which monitors the federal judicial selection process.
Is there life after Roe v. Wade? Can such a thing be possible? Will there come a time when abortion is no longer a constitutional right in America?
Yes, it is not only possible, but we believe it will happen soon. This crime against humanity — which is the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court — can and should soon be reversed by the Court itself.
Over a quarter-million Americans have now signed a petition calling abortion a crime against humanity and asking the Court to reverse its abortion cases. There are new reasons today that will convince an open-minded court to reverse legalized abortion. But when it is reversed, even if abortion were banned everywhere in America, no woman would have to care for a so-called “unwanted” child.
First, we have a new and little-known way to eliminate the perceived burdens of child-care and parental responsibility. Under the Safe Haven laws, a woman can, within a set time after birth, leave her child with the state with no questions asked, usually at an EMS or fire station or hospital emergency room and not be charged with abandonment. The state will then take care of that child until he or she has been adopted or reaches age 18. Many, many parents are waiting to adopt newborn babies. Every state in the union now has such laws.
The Safe Haven law eliminates the need for any pregnant woman to care for an “unwanted” child. There is no longer a legal rationale for abortion. Why do women want abortions? Because they cannot care for or don’t want the “burden” of child care. As the Texas abortion facility owner in the most recent Supreme Court abortion case stated at trial, “nobody gets pregnant to have an abortion.”
The vast majority of reasons for abortion are essentially eliminated by society’s willingness to totally remove the burden of child care after the baby is born. For example, if a woman is afraid that having a baby would interfere with her ability to work or continue her education, she can simply leave the child with her local hospital or fire station at birth or within the set time allowed and she won’t have a responsibility that conflicts with her future plans.
Simply drop the child off. No questions asked. No complicated legal procedure. She can transfer the responsibility to society. Now, in order for parents to avoid the substantial cost of child-care it is no longer necessary for them have an abortion which takes the life of a baby, and injures the parent emotionally and often physically.
Of course, there is still the cost and difficulty of maternity and childbirth. No one can take that lightly, but maternity is not a disease. Moreover, the remedy for the difficulty of maternity need not be the extreme case of taking the child’s life. Furthermore, it is likely that charities and public funding would be available to help women — especially low-income women and single women with the costs of maternity and childbirth.
These are practical reasons why Roe should be reversed. It is quite another matter to discuss how the Supreme Court will go about reversing Roe under the principles of judicial precedent. Legal scholars generally agree that the Supreme Court can reverse itself when:
“[t]he decision has been met with general dissatisfaction, protest, or severe criticism …. Similarly, the courts consider whether there has been a significant change in circumstances since the legal rule was promulgated.”
So, as the Supreme Court goes about reversing Roe here are factors they would likely consider.
Serious Criticism
Abortion is more than simply wrong; it is gravely, seriously wrong. It is in fact a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity occur when the government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings resulting in serious deprivation or death. One example is the Dred Scott case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court made slavery a supposedly permanent part of the Constitution; this resulted in the Civil War. The Supreme Court also committed a crime against humanity in 1896 when it legally approved segregation in a decision called Plessy v. Ferguson. In this case, serious criticism led the court to change course. Forty-six years after Roe, the criticism against it is not only gravely serious but increasing. It is time for the Court to follow its own example of ending segregation by reversing Plessy v. Ferguson with the historic Brown v. Board of Education and today reverse Roe and end this present crime against humanity. Plessy was 58 years old when it was reversed.
New Science
In 1973, in Roe, the Supreme Court said: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
The time has arrived: science now shows that life begins at conception. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled there is adequate scientific evidence to support a requirement that abortionists be required to disclose to women that abortion is the “termination of the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” Under the Law of Precedent, when science changes, the law changes. Precedent does not require that Courts adhere to the lack of scientific knowledge of 1973. The Court itself called the child in the womb “infant life” in Gonzales v. Carhart and it is past time to adequately protect this scientifically proven life.
Abortion Hurts Women
In 1973, the Supreme Court claimed it was helping women by giving them freedom from unwanted child care, but surely the Court did not know that millions of women would suffer the terrible tragedy of “devastating psychological consequences,” and “depression and severe loss of self-esteem” by killing their own child. We now know that abortion hurts women, and it is time to better protect all women from the lie that abortion doesn’t hurt women.
A Better Alternative to Abortion
There is now a better way to give women freedom from unwanted child-care without killing the child. As is discussed above, Safe Haven laws in all 50 states allow a woman, at no cost, to drop her child off at all hospitals or fire stations or other locations within a certain period of time after birth and the state or adoptive parents will take care of the baby. Unlike abortion, it is free — equally available to the rich and the poor. There is no required legal procedure and the mother does not have to travel to another state. Coat hanger abortions remain un-necessary and this change in circumstances warrants that Roe be reversed.
Millions of People Want to Adopt Newborn Babies
What will happen if women choose Safe Haven laws and give life to their babies? Those babies will be welcomed into loving homes. Over a million people in America are waiting to adopt newborn children partially because we have a huge infertility problem in America. They are praying for a child. A change in circumstances of the availability of adoptive parents is a factor that weighs heavily in favor of reversing Roe.
At long last, the abortion wars can end because every child in America is “legally” wanted and the demand for the abortion of “unwanted” children can be stopped. Consensus is possible. The reversal of Roe, Doe and Casey is legally warranted. Moreover, it is a win-win for society as a whole; any individual woman who is not yet ready or able to care for her child; and for unborn women (and men) who deserve for their lives to be recognized and protected by the Highest Court in our Land.