Abortion: A Stain on the Nation That Can Never Be Washed Off

By Rich Kozlovich 

On 6 Jul 2022 Katherine Hamilton published this piece, OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe, saying:

An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) held a virtual conference call on Wednesday to share new polling data, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe. 

And this is followed by more data on the fact a huge number of people are stunningly uninformed/misinformed about abortion, a subject that's been fought over for 50 years in the news.  What happens and when it happens are two examples, and when informed of the facts, the numbers change.

Another thing that surprised me is how many think overturning Roe makes abortion illegal throughout the country.  It doesn't, mores the shame to a nation that's done more good for more people than any country in the history of the world.  In spite of all our historical flaws, compared to the history of the rest of the world, America is still the cowboy in the white hat. 

But the decision overturning Roe V Wade is a sound one based on the idea it's not the federal judiciary's job to legislate from the bench, which was the mentality behind Roe and many more decisions from the federal judiciary and SCOTUS.

Even in the dissent from the "we are the Constitution" wing of the court made little effort to argue abortion actually was a Constitutional right .  Their arguments were "banal, whiny and petulant'', declaring it should be allowed to stand for two reasons.  Millions of Americans agree with them and since Roe V Wade has been contaminating the nation for so many years it should be left alone. 

First, the judiciary is supposed make judgements based on the rule of law, not polls on what millions of Americans think.  That's the job of the legislature.  Secondly, we need to get rid of this idea of “stare decisis” as "the" deciding factor in any case brought before the courts, and in fact, leftist justices have overturned “stare decisis” over and over again, and have been lauded by the very leftists who claim to adore the concept. 

Let's try and get this right - "stare decisis" - is not written in stone and the only reason to openly support it as something that’s “sacred” is nothing more than a public relations scam by anyone involved in politics or law. The left only 'adores' the concept if someone supports any of the leftist decisions that overturned "stare decisis" decisions of the past. 

According to these leftist misfits any effort to overturn leftist decisions, so many of which have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution", is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution.  Let's try and understand this..... just once..... please.  Stare decisis is a one way street to the left, and that means driving only on the left.  

 "It’s been my lifelong observation that liberals are a mostly conflicted, tormented group suffering from mass psychosis. They wrap themselves up in do-good, virtue-signaling knots and then attempt to rationalize positions even they know are indefensible by putting forth the most tortured, illogical explanations imaginable. Merely calling those positions “lies” doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Liberals have mastered the art of wanting to believe in a false reality, constructing a Bizarro Universe, while at the same time, excusing themselves for committing the very same transgressions against society and nature that they accuse others of doing." - Steve Feinstein

 As Jeffrey H. Anderson says:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has done more to preserve the separation of powers, the rule of law, federalism, and the Constitution itself, than any decision in centuries......... 

When judges fulfill their proper role—applying the Constitution and laws as written, according to their plain and originally understood meanings—they play a crucial role in ensuring the perpetuation of republican government—of government of, by, and for the people. 

When they instead act like unelected, unchecked legislators—while disingenuously claiming that the Constitution makes them do it—they effectively replace republicanism with government by a robed minority of Ivy League elites.

Roe V Wade and Dred Scott were absolutely outrageous decisions that were efforts by the Supreme Court to impose their political views on the nation by ignoring the rule of law.  Slavery was a stain on our history that should have never happened, and abortion, the murder of sixty million of those innocent unborn babies is an even greater stain that will mar our history forever, irrespective of what the rest of the world does or thinks.  Unborn babies are not parasites nor are they the property of their mothers. 

The Constitution has been criticized as:

"a dusty old document that's old, out-dated, almost irrelevant piece of historical Americana that was written long ago for a way of life that no longer exists. Therefore, anyone who says they want our representatives in government to strictly adhere to what is written in the Constitution are often depicted as not being fully grounded in reality, but instead, want to live in an old fashioned fantasy world. The obvious implication is that there is something mentally wrong with such people".

In reality, those who shout this clabber are afraid of the Constitution because it shines a spot light on those who would impose tyranny on the nation, safeguarding the freedoms so many died for over the life of this nation, and a major effort should be made to teach what the Constitution actually says, along with the history behind the decisions made by the Founding Fathers and why.  

Fixing education in America needs to be "Job One", as its now become a

Whether of not to murder the innocent unborn is now left up to the states, and all the logical fallacies, double speak and misdirection from leftist misfits, especially those in Congress and the White House doesn't change that. 

Roe v Wade was decided by seven justices whose names will live on in infamy. 

 
William O. Douglas, shown here with his 23 year old fourth wife, he was 69, was at best odd, and most certainly a cad whose children refused to even talk to him, and he was intellectually corrupt. There were two attempts to impeach him, both failed, which given his actions and his opinions, they should have succeeded.  A clear and stunning justification for the reasoning of those Founding Fathers who didn't want to give life time appointments to the Supreme Court, the only federal court that's in the Constitution.  All others are creations of the Congress.
 
 

William J. Brennan Jr., unlike all these leftists, jurists, and members of Congress today Brennan wasn't a big fan of stare decisis, which is normal for a leftist depending on what they want preserved, but the reason why seems clear to me. It wasn't about integrity, what he wanted was to overturn decisions that didn't fit his leftist vision of the nation.  

Stare decisis is never acceptable to the left when they want to overturn the traditional values and understandings of the nation in order to promote their radical agendas.  The only time you hear leftist demand absolute adherence to is when one of their pet decisions is being questioned. He was a radical from the git go, and was the author of the Court's opinion in 1964's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 
 

Potter Stewart was considered a centrist for most of his tenure, and as you read his opinions and positions you realize he had the same problem all these centrist jurists have.  They're clueless.  There have been two ideological camps in the Court for decades.  The leftist ideologues who want to overturn every traditional value there is, and those who believe the Constitution is what is says, and nothing more, and its not their job to legislate from the bench, referred to as Originalists.   

Then there are those centrists they jump around like ping pong balls, from one side to the other, but because of their unwillingness to have a solid ideological stand in favor of what the Constitution actually says, they become powerful as the swing vote.   

I saw him in an interview with Fred Friendly and he was adamant about one thing.  It was the Supreme Court who decides what the Constitution says, making it clear his view was the legislature was to take a back seat to 9 unelected non-representatives of the people, who often times displayed bad attitudes, twisted logic and huge egos.  

Another good reason to end lifetime appointments.  I recommend reading Mark Levin's book, Men in Black, How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

 

Thurgood Marshall was America's first black Supreme Court justice and had a very successful legal career, mostly involving racial issues and won the Brown v. Board of Education case, which was later twisted into all kinds of negative rationalizations including forced bussing.  

While he may have been a good attorney, he wasn't much of a jurist.  I remember reading at the end of his career he was pretty much out of it and mostly watched soap operas, letting his clerks do his work for him, and yet refused to retire. 

This unwillingness to retire, even when they're falling asleep on the bench, isn't an uncommon issue with these lifetime appointed justices.  I used to say the only time the nation was safe was when Congress was gridlocked and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was fast asleep on the bench.  Again, a good reason for term and age limits.

Harry Blackmun was at the time of his retirement the most liberal justice on the Court who spoke disparagingly of Clearance Thomas, while Thomas spoke well of him.  There was no left wing position we face to day he didn't favor, and I considered him one of the worst disgraces to ever sit on the Court in modern times.  In times past there were far worse but some of them were considered crazy, and they were.  Another good reason to limit their terms of office.

 

Lewis F. Powell Jr.  was for reasons I can't understand was considered a conservative justice, and at that time, he probably was, when you consider just how far left the rest were.  But he was by no means conservative in his positions and opinions.  Judge Bork, a true conservative, originalist, and nationally recognized as a real legal giant was nominated to replace him, but Joe Biden and Ten Kennedy attacked him viciously, and with the support of a corrupt media, that ended his nomination.  That's now called Borking, which we saw with Clearance Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. 

That brings us to the two justices who opposed Roe v Wade.

 

Byron White was another ping pong ball jurist, but he was clearly against Roe v Wade: 

"Along with Justice William Rehnquist, White dissented in Roe v. Wade (the dissenting decision was in the companion case, Doe v. Bolton), castigating the majority for holding that the U.S. Constitution "values the convenience, whim or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus." 

William Rehnquist was considered very conservative, and mostly he was, but I considered his reasoning on many subjects strange.  I also thought he was a bit odd, as I saw him interviewed a number of times.  He did however recognize these

Conclusion: As you read the history of these justice's positions it seems clear, at least to me, none of them had the clarity of vision that Clearance Thomas possesses.  None of them were truly conservative, nor did they truly believe the Constitution is what it says and nothing more. None of them truly believed it wasn't the Court's job to legislate from the bench, and in my opinion, all of whom were seriously flawed.   All of them represent justification for ending life time appointments for the federal judiciary.