Biblical and Constitutional Politics Home Page
Books and eBooks by the Director
“Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies”
Part One
On May 3, 2022, a draft opinion of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs case decision was leaked by Politico. The draft showed SCOTUS was poised to strike down the disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. That in fact happened on June 24, 2022.
The research for this article was done after the leaked decision. That is why the references are from that time, rather than from when the actual opinion was later released. But all was as expected, with the draft accurately reflecting the final opinion.
The reaction to that leak of the draft decision was fast and furious on both sides. On the References page is a list of news articles about it, separated by liberal and conservative news outlets. Usually, the differing take of each side on controversial issues is striking. But this time, not so much.
This two-part article concerns the support of Joe Biden, Democrats, and the media for “abortion rights,” which is to say, the killing of unborn babies.
Liberal News Outlets
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision — Planned Parenthood v. Casey — that largely maintained the right ….
The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It’s unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.
No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term (Politico. Supreme Court).
This quote is from Politico’s article about the leaked draft opinion. The leak itself should be the main story, as such has never happened before. But it was dwarfed by the implications of the leaked decision.
But for our purposes, note the terminology: “federal constitutional protection of abortion rights” and “to restrict or ban abortion.” That could just easily and in fact more correctly be worded as “federal constitutional protection of the killing of unborn babies” and “to protect the lives of unborn babies,” respectively.
Draft Excerpts:
Following are important excerpts from the draft:
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly 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. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” …
The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy….
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 enflamed debate and deepened division.
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” …
That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.
This has been the position of conservatives and Christians ever since Roe v. Wade. There simply is no “federal constitutional protection of abortion rights.” Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. As such, it should fall under the Tenth Amendment as a power “reserved” to the states or to the people. But, of course, Biden and Dems do not see it that way.
The Position of Biden and Democrats:
President Joe Biden said Tuesday [5/3/22] that the “basic fairness and the stability of our law demand” that the court not overturn Roe.
“If the court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Biden said. “And it will fall on voters to elect prochoice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more prochoice Senators and a prochoice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.” …
This year, anticipating a decision overturning or gutting Roe, eight conservative states have already moved to restrict abortion rights. Oklahoma, for example, passed several bills in recent weeks, including one that goes into effect this summer making it a felony to perform an abortion. Like many antiabortion bills passed in GOP-led states this year, it does not have exceptions for rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.
Eight Democratic-leaning states protected or expanded access to the procedure, including California, which has passed legislation making the procedure less expensive and is considering other bills to make itself an “abortion sanctuary” if Roe is overturned (AP. Supreme Court set).
Be sure to note the loaded language: “protect a woman’s right to choose,” “restrict abortion rights” about red state actions and “protected or expanded access to the procedure” for blue state actions. The first should more fully be “protect a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn baby” and the next two could just as easily be worded as, “protect the lives of unborn babies” and “expanded the ability of women to kill their unborn babies,” respectively.
The following from Bloomberg News is in regard to the situation here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has vetoed antiabortion bills passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature three times, and the Democrat promised to defend abortion rights as long as he is in office.
That window is fast closing.
Wolf steps down in January, and the fight to replace him is one of the most competitive among the 36 governor races in the U.S. this November. Pennsylvania is one of 12 states where control is split between the major parties and the one where a Republican governor could have the most direct impact on abortion laws if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its 1973 opinion guaranteeing a right to terminate a pregnancy (Bloomberg News. How Pennsylvania’s).
Once again, note the terminology: “antiabortion bills,” “defend abortion rights, and “terminate a pregnancy.” Those could be worded respectively as: “prolife bills,” “defend the killing of unborn babies,” and “ending the life of an unborn baby.”
President Joe Biden on Tuesday urged Congress to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade and said a woman’s right to have an abortion is “fundamental,” but said he wasn’t ready to call for an end to the filibuster to push for abortion rights legislation.
“Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned,” Biden said in a statement after Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court majority opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade.
The President later Tuesday morning told reporters that if the final opinion is issued along the lines of the draft it would be a “radical decision” that would throw into question “a whole range of rights” (CNN. Biden says).
The first quote from Biden comes from a tweeted statement. The second is when Biden began to use his harsh and divisive language in regard to abortion, labeling attempts to stop the killing of unborn babies as “radical” and later “extreme.”
Note also he then brings in fearmongering about other “rights.” Since Dems cannot defend the killing of unborn babies, they are beginning to pivot and to try to claim this decision will call into question other “rights” namely to homosexual marriage and contraception.
The former should be called into question, as two men or two women marrying goes against all of human history, as at no time before this century has any nation or peoples recognized such unions as marriage. It also goes against the basic point of marriage, that of bearing children. And it is clearly unbiblical.
4But answering, He said, “Did you* not read that the One having made [them] from [the] beginning made them male and female? [see Gen 1:27] 5And He said:
‘For this reason, a man will leave behind father and mother and will be joined to [or, be united with] his wife. And they will be—the two—into one flesh [or, the two will become one flesh].’ [Gen 2:24, LXX]
6With the result that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God joined together, stop letting a person separate!” (Matthew 19:4-6; ALT3).
Contraception, on the other hand, is not an issue for most all Americans, including most Christians. No state or locality has any plans to try to outlaw it, but Biden and Dems will use that red herring to try to defend abortion, even though they are not connected.
Unborn Babies Lives Matter:
In fact, the draft itself states:
The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” 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.”
This is and always has been the issue: Is what is inside a pregnant woman a person, a human being? If so, does that human being have a fundamental right to life? Dems always try to evade these questions with red herrings, as the answers are obvious to anyone with a fundamental knowledge of fetal development. Such was mentioned in the draft opinion:
The law at issue in this case, Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, see Miss. Code Ann. §4141191, contains this central provision: “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” §4().
To support this Act, the legislature made a series of factual findings. It began by noting that, at the time of enactment, only six countries besides the United States “permitted nontherapeutic or elective abortion on demand after the twentieth week of gestation.” …
The legislature then found that at five or six weeks’ gestational age an “unborn human beings heart begins beating.” At eight weeks the “unborn human being begins to move in the womb,” at nine weeks “all basic physiological functions are present;” at ten weeks “vital organs begin to function” and “hair, fingernails, and toenails begin to form;” at eleven weeks “an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he or she “may move about freely in the womb;” and at twelve weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on the human form in all relevant respects.” …
It found that most abortions after fifteen weeks employ “dilation and evacuation procedures which involve the use of surgical instruments to crush and tear the unborn child,” and it concluded that the “intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.”
The irony is, if Dems had accepted Mississippi’s 15 week restriction against killing unborn babies, Roe. v. Wade would not be overturned. Since most killings of unborn babies occur before 15 weeks, then this ban would still have allowed most abortions.
However, as this section of the draft opinion makes clear, there really is no logic to allowing abortions prior to 15 weeks but banning them after 15 weeks, as nothing fundamental changes at that magical 15-week mark. In fact, all of the marks of a human being are already present prior to 15 weeks, as the preceding quote makes clear. Thus, logically, any ban against killing unborn babies should be for the entirety of pregnancy. To put it another way, unborn babies lives matter from conception to birth.
13For You acquired my kidneys [fig., thoughts], O Lord; You helped me from my mother’s womb. 14I will give thanks to You, for I was fearfully treated wonderfully [fig., wonderfully made]; wonderful [are] Your works, and my soul knows [it] very much. 15My bones were not hidden from You, which You made in secret, and my substance in the lowest [parts] of the earth. 16Your eyes saw my unformed [substance], and every day will be written in Your scroll; they will be formed, even [when] nothing [is yet] in them (Psalm 139:13-16; ALT).
I discuss this passage and many others showing the personhood of the preborn baby in my God’s Sex Plan books. But here, it is the duty of believers and of the state to protect the most vulnerable in society. In Bible times, that was strangers (immigrants), orphans, and widows. Today, none are more vulnerable than preborn babies, and their innocent blood should not be shed.
17“You will not turn aside [or, pervert] judgment of a stranger and an orphan and a widow; you will not take the widow’s garment for a pledge….
19‘Cursed [is] whoever deviates [or, perverts] [the] judgment of [the] stranger and orphan and widow.’ And all the people will say, ‘May it be so’ (Deuteronomy 24:17; 27:19; ALT).
17Learn to be doing good. Diligently seek judgment. Deliver [the] one being wronged. Judge [or, plead for] an orphaned [child], and justify [or, do justice to] a widow….
23Your princes are rebellious, partners of thieves, loving bribes, seeking after rewards; not judging [fig., pleading for] orphans, and not paying attention to [the] judgment [fig., cause] of widows (Isaiah 1:17, 23; ALT).
5“For if making straight, you* should make your ways straight [fig., you should thoroughly make your* ways straight] and your* pursuits, and doing, you* shall do [fig., you* shall indeed execute] judgment between a man and between his neighbor; 6and you* shall not exploit a stranger and an orphan and a widow, and you* shall not shed innocent blood in this place, and you* shall not go after strange gods for hurt to you*; 7then I will cause you* to dwell in this place, in [the] land which I gave to your* fathers from age and until age [fig., forever and ever]....
3Thus says the LORD: “Execute judgment and righteousness, and be rescuing ones having been seized as plunder out of [the] hand of [the] one wronging him. And stop exploiting [the] stranger and orphan and widow and stop acting in an ungodly way, and you* shall not be shedding innocent blood in this place (Jeremiah 7:5-7; 22:3; ALT).
Conclusion to Part One
If you live in American, vote! If you have not yet done so, vote! Find out where your candidates stand in regard to the sinful and destructive LGBTQ movement and in regard to protecting the lives of unborn babies, and let your Christian faith and values guide your vote. The fate of the USA could depend on it.
Perhaps the two greatest crimes in America today are abortion and child mutilation [via “sex change” operations performed on teenagers]. This is because they are being perpetrated against the most innocent—unborn babies and helpless children—two groups who have absolutely no knowledge of how, or ability to, defend themselves….
Children are being exploited—by those who should know better than what they are doing. And the children have no self-defense. This makes the crimes even more despicable and heinous.
“Hate” is a strong word. But you don’t abort or mutilate that which you love….
Democrats are getting far more radical on abortion; it seems that every Democratic politician now advocates no restrictions up to, and sometimes even beyond, the time of birth….
True Judeo-Christian morality opposes abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism—all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman. So, as the Left’s hatred of Christianity and Western Civilization grows, they become more and more venomous and radical in their promotion of vices that the Right opposes. It is spitting in the face of a God they don’t believe in anyway (Townhall. Do Democrats Hate Children?)
“Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies” - Part Two
References:
The references for this article are posted at: “Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies” – References.
“Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies” - Part One. Copyright © 2022 By Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.zeolla.org/christian).
God’s Sex
Plan
Volume
One
What the
Old Testament Teaches About Human Sexuality
Volume
Two
What the
New Testament Teaches About Human Sexuality
The above article was first published in the free
Darkness to Light newsletter.
It was posted on
this website November 1, 2022.
Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life
Abortion (aka, the killing of unborn
babies)
Text Search
Alphabetical List of
Pages
Subject Index
General
Information on Articles
Contact Information
Darkness
to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian
Biblical and Constitutional Politics Home Page
www.zeolla.org/politics
