Justice Thomas asks where abortion is found in the Constitution: "What specifically is the right here that we're talking about?"

Dec 2nd

There's a reason the Left has tried so hard for decades – especially then-Sen. Joe Biden – to stop the Supreme Court's only current black Justice.

.

.

.

You have to love how the pro-abortion lady is talking about "bodily autonomy," but I can almost guarantee that she's for mandatory Covid jabs. Listen to the anger that's in her voice. She's shrill. She's unbalanced.

Comparatively, Clarence Thomas is cool, collected, and he knows that there is no inalienable right to murder – especially not one found in the Constitution of the United States.

I understand we're talking about abortion here. But what is confusing is that we, if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment I know what we're talking about because it's written there. What specifically is the right here that we're talking about?

He's right over the target.

The lawyer responded with a note about "viability" – a shifting term as technology progresses (let's remember that abortion is legal up until birth in many states) that detracts from the fact that an unborn child is fully human and thus has the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that even his own mother cannot take away.

And the irony of using the 14th Amendment to support abortion!! From the text:

Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Life News:

Unborn babies were recognized as "persons" under the law for more than 100 years before Roe v. Wade and their right to life should be restored, two prominent legal scholars argued in their briefs in the case.

Professor John Finnis at the University of Notre Dame Law School and Professor Robert P. George at Princeton University filed an amicus brief presenting a detailed history of American law that, according to their research, recognized unborn babies as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment up until Roe v. Wade in 1973.

...

In their brief, Finnis and George refuted the idea that the U.S. Constitution is "silent" on the matter of whether an unborn baby is a legal "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Roe v. Wade conceded that if … ‘the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,' the case for a constitutional right to abortion ‘collapses,'" they began.

The professors cited 19th century laws and court cases, statements from prominent medical groups and experts, and other evidence to show that an unborn baby was considered "a person" from conception under the law and "'to all intents and purposes a child, as much as if born.'"

According to Finnis, unborn children are properly understood as "persons" under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and state-level homicide laws therefore cannot discriminate by protecting live people but not unborn people.

Those who support abortion have no moral or scientific ground to stand on. None at all. This is the best they've got:

LET'S GOOOOOO!


Comments

There are 84 comments on this article.

Ready to join the conversation? Start your free trial today.

Access comments and our fully-featured social platform, completely free of charge.

Sign up Now
App screenshot

You must signup or login to view or post comments on this article.