Could the Dobbs opinion unite pro-life, pro-choice and pro-medical freedom people against the illegitimate, treasonous US government?
I’m almost done reading and taking notes on Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, preparing to write a summary and analysis. (See first post on this topic, May 19, 2022.)
My nutshell impression of Alito’s opinion is that it’s an attempt to acknowledge the shabby moral, historical and legal reasoning of both Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), while sidestepping the fundamental issues surrounding human life and the proper relationship between human individuals and human governments.
As drafted, the Dobbs opinion is intended to shift the authority to address the moral and legal ramifications of abortion out of the Supreme Court, and back to common law and state legislatures, where it resided from the founding of the country until January 1973.
The Dobbs opinion reduces the Supreme Court’s role to rational-basis review of state laws, the lowest of three levels of constitutional scrutiny; the court will assess whether challenged state laws are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
In other words, by sidestepping the fundamental moral and legal issues, and shifting the burden to state legislatures, the SCOTUS majority is shirking its primary obligation: to apply the US Constitution to the equal protection of American human beings from abuse of power exercised by our current human government.
I think Alito’s draft Dobbs opinion contains the seed of its own failure.
In a discussion of the problems with fetal viability classifications as a basis for different restrictions on abortion — for example, abortions permitted until viability, but limited or prohibited outright after viability — Alito notes that “viability is heavily dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus.”
He highlights two: different medical techniques available at different time periods, such that prematurely-born infants who would have died in the 19th century might survive today; and different medical services available in different geographic locations, such that a prematurely-born infant in a rural county with limited hospital facilities might die, while an infant with the same immature organ systems might survive in a medical center with more advanced equipment and more highly-skilled medical teams.
Alito concludes that viability was an extremely unsound legal basis for the abortion-rights precedents established by the Roe and Casey courts, in part because of its legal effects on the moral status of the fetus. He wrote:
“On what ground could the constitutional status of a fetus depend on the pregnant woman’s location? And if viability is meant to mark a line having universal moral significance, can it be that a fetus that is viable in a big city in the United States has a privileged moral status not enjoyed by an identical fetus in a remote area of a poor country?” Dobbs draft opinion, at p. 48-49.
As other commenters have already pointed out, if Dobbs becomes precedential, overturning Roe and Casey, then abortion law will change at each state border, depending on the laws passed by each state legislature.
The legal status of a human being living inside a human mother’s body will change as the woman travels from one state to another.
Commenters on both sides of the issue rightly point out that women seeking abortions will travel across state lines to access them, and rightly raise the related legal issue for subsequent prosecutions: Will those women be subject to the laws of the state where they live most of the time, in which abortion is a crime, or the laws of the state to which they travelled to obtain the abortion, in which it is not?
This moral and legal incoherence is extremely similar to the incoherence wrought by the Covid-19 mandates: human beings are being subjected to varying forms of medical battery across state lines, county lines, and even across the thresholds of individual public buildings such as schools, churches, businesses and government offices.
If my analysis is correct, then medical freedom fighters in the Covid-19 context, pro-life fighters and pro-abortion fighters, may shortly find themselves all fighting on the same side, mostly in the state legislatures.
And all three groups will be fighting against the US Supreme Court to the extent that the Dobbs decision denies that any individual rights against the State exist at all.
The state-level debates will have multiple fronts:
What legally defines a living creature as a human being?
When does a human being become fully vested with natural and legal rights to life and liberty?
Is bodily integrity — personal immunity from government interference with ones’ physical body — among the basic natural rights inalienably possessed by human beings?
Can the natural and legal rights of a human being be revoked by his or her government, and if so, under what conditions? In other words, are they alienable rights, or privileges, rather than inalienable rights?
If human beings possess natural legal rights to life and liberty, and if those rights include bodily integrity, what government-directed acts, on which human beings, count as violations and are therefore Constitutionally prohibited? Forced submission to unwanted, irreversible medical treatments? Forced obligations to withhold wanted medical treatments? Forced carrying of an unwanted pregnancy to term? Forced submission to an unwanted abortion?
Reader comment: “More convinced than ever that if anyone arranged this leak - seems entirely probable in current environment - it was the current "leaders" committed to the ultimate disruption and dissolution of we the American people and all imagined rights.”
Agree very much with your conclusion - the leak is part of the overall psy-op and cultural destabilization program.
I think the 1973 Roe decision was also part of the long-game for the globalists too. It came out of nowhere, in terms of common law and legal precedents, and its cultural effect was to erode dignity of human life and promote social divisions while simultaneously creating a source of human embryonic and fetal cells for biomedical research.
The timing is a tell - around that time a lot of major historical events happened:
Nixon taking US dollar off of gold standard setting off five decades of financialization of economy (Wall St. up, Main St. down)
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiments on obedience to authority to commit atrocities
War on Drugs started, leading to prison state expansion
Klaus Schwab set up World Economic Forum
Martin Seligman learned helplessness experiments
Club of Rome published Limits to Growth plan
WHO published a paper on virus and vaccine-associated immune disregulation
Alex Jan van deer Elb in Netherlands collected kidney cell line (HEK) from live female embryo through abortion
Henry Kissinger National Security Council memo re: population control
Start of DARPA [Correction: founded in 1958 as ARPA, renamed DARPA in 1972]
Richard Gardner, Council of Foreign Relations paper on the need to “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece” to establish the New World Order for the elites.