Washington D.C. — In listening to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 1st, one thing was missing. There was no humanity in the oral arguments.
Words like “reliance,” “liberty interest,” “undue burden” and “viability” flowed smoothly. And “stare decisis,” lots of “stare decisis.” Justices weighed the gravitas of 14th Amendment and august caselaw like Marbury v. Madison and Plessy v. Ferguson, among others.
The Justices and the Solicitors General were adept at arguing the finer legal points. Petitioners claim the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional bounds.
Almost 50 years ago the Court created a national, evolving legal standard. It started with Roe v. Wade’s trimester system and morphed to the modern “viability” medical standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Respondents countered by trumpeting the protection of “liberty” for all women (or pregnant person nowadays) to safeguard the traditional, historic, common law right in “ending their pregnancies.”
These two positions are diametrically opposed, as Justice Kavanaugh expressed to Respondents near the end of the hearing:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: there are two interests at stake . . . . and the reason this issue is hard, is that you can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time, and that’s why this is so challenging, I think.
And the question then becomes, what does the Constitution say about that? . . .
When you have those two interests at stake and both are important, as you acknowledge, why not — why should this Court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this? . . .
Why is that not the right answer?
While pro-abortionists demand “liberty” and protection from state by way of the 14th Amendment, the strict constructionists on the court, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh and possibility Gorsuch and Barrett, may favor overturning Roe and Casey as wrongly decided. They can certainly craft an opinion that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion and is beyond the limited scope of the Supreme Court. If so, the issue of abortion would go back to the states. That would be a victory for pro-life forces.
Sadly, the issue of personhood, of the fundament right to life as expressed in our Declaration of Independence, was swept away in euphemisms like “ending their pregnancies” that deny the very existence of the baby in the womb.
How much blood has been spilt in 50 years? We know, by the abortion industry’s own numbers, that more than 60 million babies have been ripped up while still alive in the womb, ripped into little pieces, to accommodate “liberty”. Untold pounds of human flesh have been unceremoniously tossed into garbage cans, or even worse sold to research facilities. These unknown, unspoken human beings are the martyrs of women’s liberty.
But absent from the arguments, by any side, was the human cost of abortion mentioned. Its absence was deafening, and disheartening, because in the final analysis it is the human tragedy of abortion that matters.
Humanity lost this week.