A press release by Ohio Right to Life this past week championed “Gov. Kasich Signs Landmark Bill to Challenge Roe”. Their thinking was that the new 22 week ban on abortions in Ohio, based on a baby’s supposed ability to feel pain at that gestational age, will create a Supreme Court challenge that will cause the overturning by the Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade. In their press release, the group said “By signing S.B. 127, the 20-week ban, Governor Kasich will save hundreds of unborn lives each year and he positioned the state of Ohio to directly challenge Roe v. Wade.”
First, note that they called it a 20 week ban, while it is actually 20 weeks post fertilization, which is 22 weeks of gestational age since the first day of the last menstrual period, the normal pregnancy gestational framework. Will the Supreme Court really admit their error and “overturn” Roe? Ohio Right to Life went on to say ” At no time in our state’s history have we had such protective pro-life laws, and we have Gov. Kasich and our pro-life legislature to thank”. Should we be championing a supposed victory whilst 3,000 American children continue to be slaughtered every day? Over 20,000 babies in Ohio are aborted (murdered) each year, only 145 of which happen after 21 weeks, and of those that happen after 22 weeks, which we do not know what that number is, perhaps those mothers could just move up their appointment to abort (kill) their children to comply with S.B. 127. Or, since Ohio’s S.B. 127 allowed abortion even after 22 weeks if the mother’s life was in danger or if there was a threat to a bodily function of the mother, these abortions could still take place under those “exceptions”.
Regardless, we want to examine whether there is a history of humility in the Supreme Court when they rule so unjustly as in Roe v. Wade. Looking farther back in history to 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford US Supreme Court decision, we see that the court opined that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the United States], and sold as slaves”, whether that negro was enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The decision also put forth that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. The Dred Scott decision, as it is now known, is held by legal scholars as one of the most unconstitutional decisions ever of the Supreme Court. Did the court ever reverse or overturn their decision in the Dred Scott case? In 160 years of legal history since 1857, the court has referenced Dred Scott at least 56 times in other opinions of the court, and those citations have been mostly neutral or even positive in regards to the illegitimate Dred Scott decision. So after a civil war, a President’s Emancipation Proclamation, constitutional amendments (the 13th and 14th), and abolition of slavery altogether, the Supreme Court still has never acknowledged its bad decision in denying full citizen rights of black slaves and thereby reinforcing America’s kidnapping-based slavery. The Supreme Court has never, in any opinion, repudiated the Dred Scott decision.
So, why is the strategy of most pro-lifers and many right-to-life organizations tied to a humility of the US Supreme Court to reverse themselves? American slavery was ended by war, a US President’s executive order, an act of Congress in the Civil Rights Act, and two constitutional amendments. All of those are actions of the legislative and executive branches of government to repudiate the judiciary.
It is about 45 years past the time to defy the US Supreme Court opinion that essentially held that the pre-born human is the property of its mother, to be disposed of at her will under a so-called right to privacy. By placing our hope in courts, we have allowed 60 million American babies and 80,000 Idahoans to be slaughtered. Would we wait on a change in the courts if they ruled that it was okay to kill born people? How about if they simply ruled that our 2nd amendment right to bear arms was null and void – would we submit our weapons to the government based on a court’s opinion? Then, why have we submitted babies to the butcher’s equipment based on mere court opinion?
If rape were legalized by a court, after 45 years and 60 million women were raped, we hope we would not be striving over legislation that would require rapists to wear condoms while they raped a woman. It is time to establish justice. Our hope for the abolition of abortion in Idaho is not in the Supreme Court reversing themselves. It is rather in the people, the legislature and the governor standing against, defying, the unjust Roe v. Wade decision.