On December 1, 2021 SCOTUS heard a case involving abortion. I wrote a brief titled, Coulda Woulda. on December 23, 2021 after the hearing on Roe v Wade, but before the ruling, Download Coulda Woulda PDF here. Full text follows:
When
I was young, my mother told me she never wanted me. I was a change of
life baby: likely an inconvenience. I know if she coulda she woulda
aborted me. Killing a baby is personal and no one should ever debate
abortion, unless a baby not born yet is allowed to defend his or her
life.
With Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks being challenged, 1973 Roe v. Wade is back in the spotlight. On Wednesday, December 1, 2021, SCOTUS heard the reasons for and against when a “fetus” can be aborted.
The Court should take notice that every human being has been a fetus and as such has a vested interest in knowing whether their life should have or could have been ended in the womb. People have a right to know why their life was spared. Therefore, standing is established.
The baby in the womb -- whose life or death is at the center of this debate -- must have a voice in the debate.
This right cannot be determined and denied in ignorance: When life begins -- and whether life in the womb even exists -- are material facts essential to the correct outcome. Since in 1973 Roe, these facts were not established beyond a reasonable doubt, the outcome fails on its face.
To complicate the matter, in 1973 Roe case, it appears that the confirmation of life was deliberately avoided, omitted or at least ignored. A supposition was made -- without evidence -- that the baby was a glob of tissue, essentially so the woman could rely on creative excuses that sound plausible to — end the life of her baby any day, week or month that she chooses.
Since the Court
apparently relied on supposition -- it is incumbent on the Court — to
throw out 1973 Roe v Wade in its entirety or hear evidence now before
making a final decision. Life is not disposable.
Right to Adequate Defense
Not
even a felon sentenced to the death penalty is denied the opportunity
to defend him or herself. In Roe v Wade, the innocent defenseless baby
in the womb certainly was denied his or her right to be heard, let alone
the right to an adequate defense.
No one can or should deny
that an accused human being deserves, and is entitled to an adequate
defense. Failing to give a human life the opportunity to defend him or
herself is not legal in our justice system.
Since material facts
that life does or does not exist in the womb, were not established, the
Court must take notice of decades of common knowledge that a pregnant
woman gives birth to a human being.
Factual evidence cannot be
based on supposition: There is no evidence to conclude that life is not
continuous from conception to birth.
Further, obvious proof of
human life in the womb that cannot be disputed is that, we were all a
“fetus.” Not aborted, we grew up to be doctors, architects, artists,
musicians, athletes, writers, farmers, teachers, Presidents of the
United States and even Supreme Court Justices.
Weighing a
mother’s rights or the interests of States, without giving the one whose
life is to be ended — an opportunity to be heard — seems inherently
unconstitutional.
Shouldn’t the 2021 SCOTUS at least consider
when life begins in the womb and whether that life has Constitutional
rights that could be violated — before making a life and death decision?
New Evidence
It’s common knowledge that in a trial
when new evidence is discovered affecting the outcome, it’s justifiable
cause to reconsider the decision — especially in a murder trial. Roe v
Wade can certainly be viewed as a murder trial with the life of a baby
in the womb at issue.
Since Roe relied on a supposition that a
“fetus” was nothing more than a glob of tissue, it is relevant to review
what was known then and now as to when life begins in the womb:
The Heartbeat
The
heartbeat of a baby in the womb is new evidence that wasn’t raised in
Roe — and proves that a defenseless baby not born yet is a live human
being.
It’s a medically established fact that without a
heartbeat, death ensues within minutes. Therefore, a “heartbeat” is
conclusive evidence that the continually beating heart of a baby in the
womb, verifies life.
Existing Evidence
In 1895, Adolphe
Pinard (1844–1934) a French obstetrician, designed an elegant,
trumpet-shaped instrument for listening to babies in utero. Using this
simple tool, sound made by the fetal heart was efficiently transmitted
to the listener’s ear. This means that the heartbeat of a baby in the
womb could be heard 78 years before Roe. Yet, this material fact was
withheld from the 1973 SCOTUS.
The term ultrasound refers to the
technique used to produce an image, while the sonogram is the image
itself. By 1942, medical professionals could not only hear the
heartbeat, but produce a photographic image. Karl Dussik was the first
to use sonogram for medical diagnosis in 1942. Another discovery came in
1948 from George D. Ludwig, M.D. when he was an intern at the Naval
Medical Research Institute. This means that the heartbeat of a baby in
the womb could be seen 31 years before Roe. Yet, this material fact was
withheld from the 1973 SCOTUS.
According to Lumen Learning, the
heart of a baby in the womb originates about day 18 or 19 from the
mesoderm and begins beating and pumping blood about day 21 or 22. An
article by Gail Peterson on November 26, 2021, reports, “Through the use
of ultrasounds, modern science can detect the waves of the baby’s
heartbeat as early as three weeks after fertilization.”
According to VeryWellFamily.com, seeing a baby's heartbeat on an early pregnancy ultrasound is one of the surest indicators that a pregnancy is proceeding as it should. Sadly, the reverse is also true.
In other
words, a heartbeat vs. no heartbeat seems material to any debate
arguing to cut the baby out and end life, doesn’t it? Yet, it seems yes
or no heartbeats is a fact that was withheld from the 1973 SCOTUS.
“Once
the heart begins its detectable beat, it is obvious that it beats much
faster than an adult’s. “This miraculous growth proves the existence of a
human being who is not a part of his mother but who is his own person
and reliant upon her for sustenance. -- Originally published in May 2019
and updated in November 2021 by Susan Ciancio.
Further, the
fact that two heartbeats can be heard simultaneously, and that one can
be distinguished from the other -- is irrefutable proof that a separate
human being is present and growing in the mother’s womb. These facts
verify a baby’s life and as such, his or her Constitutional rights and
privileges. It seems two distinguishable heartbeats are facts withheld
from the 1973 SCOTUS.
Due to advancements in science and
technology, a baby’s heartbeat can be detected as early as 3 weeks.
which confirms life growing in her womb. That’s proof, the reason the
medical profession didn’t hear the heartbeat sooner was because science
hadn’t advanced — not because there was no heartbeat.
Why was this history of the baby’s heartbeat in the womb withheld?
The Home Pregnancy Test,
also known as the Early Pregnancy Test (EPT) was available on the
market in 1977. Research on the product was likely ongoing in 1973. In
any event, an entire industry makes a convenient product that provides
information for a woman (without an immediate doctor’s visit) as soon as
6 weeks whether or not the birth of a baby is imminent.
It’s
well established that husbands, parents, other family members and in
some cases, entire communities including law enforcement, prosecutors
and the judiciary have long recognized a living baby in the mother’s
womb. For example, when a pregnant woman is killed due to a drunk
driver, society recognizes that “two people” died: The mother and the
baby. in her womb.
No one ever says, “We’re having a fetus.”
The term “unborn” sounds somewhat gruesome: After all, A person has to
be born before they can be unborn. Society has long claimed, “We’re
having a baby.” Perhaps it’s more humane to say, the “baby before it’s
born” or “not born yet.” That’s more accurate, isn’t it?
At 3
weeks, the baby’s heart can be heard beating continuously, separate from
the mother: A baby not born yet is not a glob of tissue. There is no
evidence to refute that a baby’s heartbeat is continuous from conception
to birth.
Does the Heartbeat Begin at Conception
In
an article by Sydni Ellis on December 23, 2021, titled “The surprising
history of home pregnancy tests,“ Mary Jane Minkin, MD, OB-GYN, a
clinical professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive
Sciences at Yale University School of Medicine, and founder of
madameovary.com said, “the fertilized egg as it starts developing after
being implanted into the wall of the uterus.” In other words, life
begins at conception.
As technology and science advance, perhaps
we will hear the heart beating at conception. Since there is no
evidence to contradict -- that the baby’s heartbeat is continuous from
conception to birth, in good conscience, we must affirm that fact until
that conclusion can be challenged and disproved in a court of law. To do
otherwise, would be contrary to the Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Declaration of Human Rights
On
December 10, 1948, the United States signed the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
This declaration affirms the United States obligation to Article 3 which
reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.”
Human Instinct to Survive
Justice Sonia
Sotomayor may have been playing devil’s advocate when she questioned
life in the womb by comparing a brain dead person to a “fetus.” She
suggested a brain dead person’s recoil from touch is not proof of pain
that a human being feels, but nothing more than a spontaneous response
to stimulus.
No disrespect, but it’s unlikely that the Justice
meant that all persons who recoil at touch indicates they’re brain dead.
We know more today.
A brain dead person may spontaneously
respond to touch; there may or may not be a sensation of pain; or it
might simply be a last ditch effort to cling to life. The fact is a
brain dead person is headed for the exit door of life and typically dies
shortly after stimulus, such as a poke on the toe from the tip of a
sharp knife.
A “fetus” is not headed for death. The continuous
heartbeat clearly communicates that the baby in the womb is alive, and
when touched by a sharp knife in an abortion procedure clearly reacts
based on an inherent survival instinct that all living human beings
have. The natural desire or tendency for self preservation is universal
and is as alive as it gets in life’s human consciousness. If aborted,
the baby would suffer pain, as would any mortally wounded human being.
It’s
judicious to raise concern: To deny life in the womb is dangerous. It’s
a an affirmation that life has little worth. It’s more than a decline
in morality. This ignorant, self-serving precedent can be extended to
all life by a tyrannical government’s lust for power. No one would be
safe. Who would be spared?
Cruel and Unusual Pain and Suffering
The
8th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the
infliction of cruel and unusual punishment or any treatment that causes
pain and suffering.
It’s undeniable that a woman is not allowed
to punish her unwanted baby in the womb by aborting him or her causing
unimaginable pain and suffering. A baby in the womb with a heartbeat
doesn’t deserve to be punished, cut out, used for experiments, sold for
parts or murdered — even if the condition of the baby -- might not be
viable outside the womb yet.
We as a civilized society recognize
that a baby not born yet is alive in the mother’s womb and cannot be
deprived of his or her rights and privileges.
Right to Be Born
Once
a human life has been detected or even suspected, that life has a right
to be born — with or without an EPT or confirmation from a doctor’s
diagnosis. Human life is not disposable.
The 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 states in part: “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside.”
It’s a fact that a person can only be identified as
born — if first he or she is not born yet. This means that our U.S.
Constitution recognizes babies who are not born yet.
There are No Conditions to Life
“No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States… or 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.” —
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To be clear, pursuant to
the 14rh Amendment of the United States Constitution, a living baby not
born yet cannot be interfered with, terminated, ended or aborted due to
his or her condition — meaning “may or may not be viable outside the
womb.”
There are no conditions to stop birth, nor should there
be. No State shall make or enforce any law that denies the right of an
innocent baby to life, because a “baby’s condition is waiting to be
born” -- whether the waiting period left is seconds, days, weeks or
months.
There is no specific condition that those who are blind,
deaf or in a coma can be deprived of their right to life and liberty.
Veterans who lost arms and legs fighting for our country, a baby in the
womb or born with a drug addiction all have the right to life and
liberty and cannot be excluded due to their condition.
The right to life cannot be distinguished in the application of an innocent baby’s rights — before or after birth.
To
withhold these rights would be tantamount to promoting the death and
disposal of an imperfect human body. Who would be safe? Who would be
spared and why?
In other words, in the absence of such a specific
intent to exclude, the U.S. Federal government, any of its departments,
agencies or components, such as a city, county, or board; any of the 50
or future States comprising the United States or a nation's government —
cannot deprive a baby in the womb of his or her life at 6, 15, 27, 36
or any week on the calendar.
Not Even Citizenship Can Deny the Right to Life
The
right to life is universal: Sacrosanct. U.S. citizens, non citizens,
legal residents and people on U.S. soil who are here illegally, without
legal authorization or documented permission, have a right to life and
cannot be denied that right (at least without due process). By their
very nature babies not born yet are innocent.
An innocent baby
of a U.S. citizen not born yet is guaranteed the full protections of the
U.S. Constitution with all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen —
including: the right to be born — and in the alternative — not to be
aborted; to be immune from being forced to end life by abortion; and the
right to be treated equally whether born or not born yet. -- 14th
Amendment.
Likewise, a baby born to a foreigner on U.S. soil (whether here legally or illegally) remains a citizen of their parent’s country. But — has a right to life — and not be aborted.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. — UDHR
Standards of Decency
After
WWII, the Holocaust and the adoption of the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights -- in the plurality opinion on Trop v. Dulles, the 1958
SCOTUS published their concern about decency: “...the 8th Amendment
must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark
the progress of a maturing society.”
The 1958 Court may have
wanted to issue a warning to a future SCOTUS in regard to behavior that
might not conform to accepted standards of morality or respectability.
In
its wisdom the 1958 SCOTUS may or may not have anticipated the atrocity
of abortion. There’s little doubt that the Court rejected behavior
contrary to morality or respectability — such as permitted in 1973 Roe.
Potentiality of Human Life
It’s
notable that the Justices may have been concerned that their decision
was not right: As a matter of caution, they included a few words,
“protecting the potentiality of human life.”
Existing evidence,
new evidence and common sense dispels whether a “baby” only represents
the potential for human life, but actually is human life: The question
has been answered with the heartbeat. We know that a baby in the womb is
a live human being and the “potential” to sustain life is no different
than any man, woman and child.
A pregnant woman has a legal responsibility to sustain the baby’s life growing within her womb.
Behavior has Consequences
A
man cannot grab a crying toddler, throw him against the wall and kill
him without consequences. A mother cannot drown her troublesome baby in
the bathtub and bury his or her little body in the backyard without
consequences. These acts are not only murder in today’s society, but
cruel and unusual punishment that causes unimaginable pain to an
innocent life.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
appeared to disagree and argued in favor of Roe that a woman can decide
what she wants to do with her own body and that gives her the right to
choose to abort the baby in her womb. But does she have that right?
It’s
a fact that a woman makes her choice when she chooses to spread her
legs, welcomes a man’s sperm into her body and becomes pregnant. In
other words, when this union results in conception, the woman cannot
avoid her responsibilities — after the fact — by aborting, cutting or
sucking the baby out of her body.
The alleged “claims” of the
woman to abort, must be weighed against the “Constitutional rights” of
her baby in the womb — not to be aborted.
An innocent,
defenseless baby has an unspoken right to rely on the mother to protect
her baby from harm. Failing to do so has consequences.
Responsibility to Sustain Life
This
debate is no debate. Based on the 1958 Court’s attention to the 8th
Amendment regarding decency, it’s likely that they would have concluded
that a pregnant woman’s responsibilities far outweigh any alleged claim
to abortion.
In fact, there are many laws that spell out a
mother’s duty to her living baby — and by extension -- her living baby
in the womb, including that the baby growing in her womb is reliant upon
her for sustenance. The woman has a legal obligation to care for her
baby. waiting to be born. The standard of care in our society is
generally that a mother-to-be curbs her behavior, avoids alcohol, drugs;
sees a doctor, takes pre-natal vitamins…
Many laws strictly enforce parental obligations and responsibilities in the “best interests of the child.” These include: to keep the baby safe from harm or injury, preserve the baby’s health, defend the baby’s liberty -- and support the baby’s life until he or she is 18 years old.
A woman
has no right to discard or end the life of her baby waiting to be born,
whether she suddenly claims a right to privacy, whether raising a baby
is inconvenient, whether risks were or were not weighed, whether the
outcome was unforeseen, decisions were made in haste, whether caring for
her baby in the womb is unwelcome or uncomfortable, whether sacrifices
are necessary and challenges are difficult… the man and woman made their
choice and must face the consequences of their actions.
Of course, the parents can be relieved of their obligation by choosing to put the baby up for adoption.
Fraud on the Court
It’s
incomprehensible how or why the 1973 Court justified permitted
abortion. The argument that a baby not born yet was supposed to be
nothing more than a glob of tissue that could be cut out at the whim of a
woman was an obscene slight of hand.
1) It’s undeniable that a
woman’s pregnancy results in the birth of a human being. That knowledge
should have been sufficient to reject abortion.
2) Attorneys on
both sides failed to prove or disprove life exists in the womb and/or
when the baby’s life begins. Material facts and at the very least
relevant questions were withheld from the Court: Facts that should have
been answered prior to making it legal to murder defenseless babies in
the womb. Omissions that made the suppositions patently false: A baby is
not a glob of tissue.
3) Making inaccurate suppositions and
incomplete arguments as if the assertions were complete facts -- not
only denied a human being the opportunity to an adequate defense; caused
the murder of thousands of innocent babies; but was also a deceit upon
the Court that involved the Justices in the atrocities that followed for
48 years to date. These facts could be a fraud upon the Court that
cannot be cured.
4) Our legal system provides the opportunity for
unbiased legal representation and/or at the very least a child advocate
in cases involving a minor child. There is no condition to deny these
rights to the baby in the womb. As a matter of caution, representation
should have been provided. None was provided or offered. This fact
should be a fatal flaw in the 1973 Roe v Wade case that voids the entire
case/decision on that date.
If the Court determines that either
side deliberately made untrue and/or unproven suppositions to the Count
in order to gain a favorable decision on the issue of abortion — murder
by another name, then any person who argued for, encouraged, promoted,
participated or advocated abortion, as well as, every company and
organization from 1973 forward should answer for and be held legally
accountable for the murders committed since that date.
Summary
There’s
overwhelming evidence that a baby in the womb with a heartbeat lives in
the mother’s womb. Killing a human being without due process is not
allowed. Abortion must be abolished by SCOTUS.
Abortion makes a
deadly decision without considering the rights of a human being.
Abortion also signals that the Constitution doesn’t protect all life,
but is selective based on (1) whose life is more worthy than another, or
(2) whose condition can be a deciding factor to end life. Allowing
abortion, the Court must ask -- who in the future will decide which life
is viable. Hitler?
In December 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom
unveiled a plan for the Golden State to become a "sanctuary" for
abortion. MSN news reported, “In a tweet, pro-life activist and Live
Action President Lila Rose slammed the plan, saying the state will be
more like a "slaughter house than a sanctuary" if the plan is fulfilled.
"A ‘sanctuary’ where children are taken to be killed," Rose wrote.
"More like a slaughter house than a sanctuary. Horrific."
Abortion
should not be sent back to the States. It could prolong the deaths of
many more innocent babies in the womb. In 1877, after the Civil war,
disgruntled Confederate Democrats didn’t agree with Lincoln that slaves
should be free men. They founded the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). After
Republican President Grant passed Anti-Klan laws -- To get around these
federal laws, State legislators passed Jim Crow laws that again
repressed the rights of Black citizens — and ensured white superiority
and segregation.
Abortion should be abolished like slavery was
to end the argument about whether abortion is legal in the United
States. However, States should be tasked with enforcing the prohibition
of abortion, and all who refuse should be held libel for failure to do
so in the most severe terms by the relevant people.
The 2021
SCOTUS has the ability to right this wrong and hopefully they will. Life
itself deserves the immediate full protection that only SCOTUS can
provide at this time.
There’s no need to guess what the “first
citizens” of our great country -- who fought a bloody American
Revolutionary War would say. These brave citizens sacrificed everything
-- against all odds -- to insure the rights to life and liberty for
their descendants: They would never have dreamed they’d have to explain
or defend the right of their descendants to be born. It’s a total
disgrace that common sense failed to prevail in the question of whether a
U.S. citizen has the right to life and the right to be born. Click here to read or download.
///