Capitol police placed fencing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in an attempt to separate rallies by abortion supports and pro-lifers. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Denver Newsroom, May 3, 2022 / 18:00 pm (CNA).
The Supreme Court’s previous abortion rulings were “egregiously wrong from the start” and on a “collision course with the Constitution.” These are among the colorful phrases of a 98-page preliminary draft of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could return abortion law to the U.S. states and their voters.
The draft in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked on Monday evening. The Supreme Court stressed that the document “does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.” But the draft shows some insight into the thought of author Justice Samuel Alito on how the court might overturn the pro-abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Here are some choice thoughts, phrases, and arguments from Alito’s draft:
Mandatory legal abortion is overruled, the debate goes back to the states.
“Abortion presents a profound moral question,” the draft concludes. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito said in his introduction. “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is explicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely: the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
It’s about human life: Abortion ‘fundamentally different’ than related court decisions
“Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being’.” (p. 5)
“None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion.” (p. 32)
‘Egregiously wrong from the start’
“Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have inflamed debate and deepened division.” (p. 6)
Women’s voices on abortion must be heard through the legislature and the ballot box, not the courts
“Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so.” (p. 61)
The states have ‘legitimate interests’ to regulate abortion.
“…procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our nation’s history.
“It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged ‘under the Constitution, courts cannot ‘substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies’.
“…These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.” (p. 65-66)
Roe v. Wade was ‘on a collision course with the Constitution’ from day one.
“…Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed. Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, and Casey perpetuated its errors, and the errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people.
“Rather, wielding nothing but ‘raw judicial power,’ the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.
“Casey described itself as calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the state’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe.” (p. 40)
Abortion precedents relied on bad history and bad reasoning
“The weaknesses in Roe’s reasoning are well-known. Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, it imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.” (p. 42)
“What Roe did not provide was any cogent justification for the lines it drew.” (p. 46)
“The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.
“Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.” (p. 9)
“Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe faulty historical analysis. It is therefore important to set the record straight.” (p. 16)
“Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right…
“Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions.” (p. 15)
“By the end of the 1950s, according to the Roe Court’s own count, statutes in all but four states and the District of Columbia prohibited abortion ‘however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother’.
“This overwhelming consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. At that time, also by the Roe Court’s own count, a substantial majority—30 States—still prohibited abortion at all stages except to save the life of the mother…
“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.” (p. 24)
The Supreme Court can’t settle the abortion debate
“This Court’s inability to end debate on the issue should not have been surprising. This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on. Whatever influence the Court may have on public attitudes must stem from the strength of our opinions, not an attempt to exercise ‘raw judicial power’.” (p. 64)
[…]
Over a year ago, Bishop Voderholzer proposed a revised script for the German “synodal path,” and was stiffed by the clericalists. Refreshing news, here, to find a German bishop speaking common sense, as if the truth mattered and still exists. The pygmies should have listened. They’ve been upstaged by one of the adults in the room.
Yes, forward (!) to the “central questions”: “Is it meaningful to speak of God? Can God have revealed himself in Jesus Christ? Is this revelation recognizable, and is it liberating for me? What does grace mean? How do grace and freedom go together? Are faith in creation and a scientific approach to the world compatible?”
Yes, one of the few outstanding German bishops. “They all knew that the revelation of God is self evident” (Voderholzer). That truth, Christ revealing of his Father’s essence is divine love, pure love, infinite, the supreme truth. It requires no supporting arguments, or proofs. We assent to what cannot be denied.
One German bishop who has something to say.
“Are faith in creation and a scientific approach to the world compatible?”
For 100 years, science has known that the universe does not exist without a conscious observer, who we know to be Adam kind, in it. It takes a conscious observer to physically experience the universe, which causes ‘wave collapse’, for a physical universe to exist. When man is not experiencing the universe, a physical universe no longer exists. This is non-intuitive, meaning, scientists could never have imagined this to be the case, until scientific data proved that this is the case.
The actual scientific data at the quantum level, is on the side of the Christian Believer. Scientifically, there can be no physical universe before Adam opened his eyes to look, touch, smell, hear, taste, and experience his Reality of their being a universe.
Neils Bohr, “It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho
Why does the world not know that there can be no physical universe before Adam opened his eyes? Because atheist scientists don’t want you to know about it. So once the truth comes out about how the universe does not exist before Adam opens his eyes as a conscious observer, Christian Creationists are justified as the correct interpreters of when Creation happened. Creation happened on the week Adam was made. This will be a strong shot in the arm for the Christian faith.
Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein.
Neils Bohr says that there is no universe when a conscious man is not looking at it. Albert Einstein says, “I’d like to think the moon was there even when I wasn’t looking at it.” After over a century of fierce debate and mountains of scientific research to settle the debate, Neils Bohr’s ‘ ‘Peek A Boo’ universe, a universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it, is dominating the debate, over Albert Einstein’s “I’d like to think the moon was there even when I wasn’t looking at it.” By the end of the following video, the narrator indicates that there is only a slim chance that Albert Einstein’s ‘Realism’ can be salvaged. Proven science says there is no universe when Adamkind is not looking at it and experiencing it.
https://youtu.be/tafGL02EUOA
Neils Bohr
“Nor is it our business to prescribe to God how He should run the world.”
Scientists are up to sending 800 atom molecules through the double slit experiment. There is a, seen by man, 800 atom molecule coming out of the particle gun, but then there is only a fuzzy mixture of all possibilities going through the double slit, provided man is not looking at it, and then there is an 800 atom molecule, seen by man when hitting the screen. In other words, the 800 atom molecule exits, coming out of the gun with man looking at it, then does not exist when man is not looking at it going through the double slit, and then the 800 atom molecule is seen by man on the screen it hits. An 800 atom molecule just popping in and out of existence. Wow!
Not only does God know our every thought, hear our every prayer, know our soul, but our individual universe is completely controlled by God. When two people have different, individual Realities, the two Realities collapse into one, common Reality, when they discuss with one another their different Realities. Wow!
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
So what proven science is telling us, is that Adam kind is at the center of all that physically exists, and that God can select from all possible Realities, what an individual human being will experience as their Reality. Talk about having a personal relationship with our God! Wow!
When a subatomic particle is in wave form, it possesses all possible properties, which can be chosen from by God, to become all possible outcomes. All of these, ‘all possible outcomes’, are bouncing off one another to produce the wave effect, when traveling through the double slit. When man goes to experience his individual Reality, now only one, of ‘all possible outcomes’, is selected by God, to become a specific physical particle, with specific properties, in a specific place, and the rest of the ‘all possible properties’ no longer exist. In the case of a star, infinite subatomic particles make the wave collapse simultaneously, with all particles taking their single specific property, in their specific place, in their specific atom, in their specific molecule, in their specific star. Then when man is no longer looking at the star, all the infinite subatomic particles immediately return back to being a soup of all possibilities again. Wow! It is only God Who has the Power to do something like this! It is God’s miraculous, great Power selecting the property, and position that all, infinite, subatomic particles will transition into, from their wave state of all possible properties, when man looks at a star and triggers wave collapse. Wow! Wow! Wow! And when a man looks at a star, he is usually looking at a sky full of our one septillion stars!
There is no way a universe which only exists when man is looking at it, can come in and out of existence, without the miraculous power of God making it so! I believe the reason God allowed mankind to see His miraculous work at the quantum level, is that God is waving to atheist scientists, the world, and we His Church on earth. The atheist scientists are doing everything in their power, especially through Scientism, to silence our God’s miraculous Presence at the quantum level. The actual scientific data at the quantum level, is on the side of the Christian Creationist Believer.
Grasping the reality and seriousness of abortion, or, contraception, and trying to share it in your parish and community, is not “doing politics”. Four points about this:
1. It goes back to the first Council, the Council of Jerusalem: you are not “tearing up the seamless garment of the Church” when you preserve it. Look out; because people can try to demean you and belittle the subject matter, “calling it out” via wrong senses, like, “being controversial”, or, “doing heavy-duty evangelizing”, or, “running for office”/”want to stand out”, or, “stuck on ethics”.
2. What is happening today is not 3 abortions every 5 years by teens sneaking out to the malpractice doctor. It is a widespread phenomenon carrying ideological affects and developing alongside an organized industrial enterprise extracting and manipulating human flesh -all highly publicized and integrally promoted and defended.
3. We laypeople are meant to be in politics as well as apostolate.
4. There are and will continue to be attempts from many sides, to diminish and even snuff out pro-life politics as well as apostolates; but also trying to find ways to neutralize/anasthetize them.