Following the counsel of the abortion regulators in the pro-life movement, the people of Texas passed a law intended to apply equal standards for medical practice to abortion mills located in their state. When pro-abortion murder cultists challenged the Texas law, the United States Supreme Court sided with them. The Court’s majority stayed true to the anti-Constitutional, pro-murder jurisprudence tortuously developed since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. In doing so, they conformed to the true logic of the abortion.
Abortion is not a medical practice. Abortion mills are not medical facilities. They are temples dedicated to child-sacrifice, the murder cultists’ sacred rite. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito decried the majority’s “patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way.” To illustrate his point, commentators like WND editor Joseph Farah accurately observed that “the Supreme Court has never suggested that safety standard for bearing firearms, a clearly defined constitutional right, somehow infringe on the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
For the time being, the SCOTUS’s jurisprudence in respect of the Second Amendment still reflects the logic of the American Declaration of Independence, whose adoption we commemorated on Monday. The Declaration articulates the premise of God-endowed rights, from which the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution are rationally derived. Thus the 2nd Amendment is about the use of arms to defend the free state (i.e., condition) of the people, as individuals and as a whole. Except when assailants act to despoil their life and/or property, the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not envisage damaging or killing anyone. Rather, it aims to assure that, when attacked, people will have what it takes to enact (put into action) the first law of nature, the precept that makes self-preservation naturally right.
By contrast, the SCOTUS’s whole jurisprudence in respect of abortion depends on the premise that all human offspring do not, simply on account of their human nature, fall within the purview of the law’s protection. According to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, the obligation to respect one’s own life and that of others does not simply apply to nascent human beings. Their life’s claim to be treated respectfully is not intrinsic to their nature. It is not directly substantiated by the authority of the Creator. Instead, it depends on arbitrary judgments, made in light of circumstances that include the advantage, convenience, and above all, the superior power, of human authorities, whether they be the progenitors of that offspring, or the Justices of the Supreme Court.
As Donald Trump might say, the Justices do not “bring God into that picture.” What He has given beforehand to every human being (as it were, fore-given) in order to preserve and perpetuate human life, is not an imperative that all human beings must take into account. It is no more imperatively right for us to respect the life of our nascent posterity in the womb than to preserve the stones we crush into gravel to pave our roads; or the plants we rip out by the roots to service our hunger or produce our clothing.
But what is the basis for equality under the law once justice no longer requires being held accountable to the authority that enables us to distinguish right from wrong? If, on account of the mere fact of their natural humanity, it is not imperatively required to extend the equal protection of the law of nature to all human life, why is it imperative to respect that standard when it comes to the ways and means employed to extinguish human life?
You may argue, if you like, that their mother is a person to whom the standard applies. But if the mother may choose to obviate the standard of humanity with respect to the child, surely she may also choose to do so with respect to herself. So, by sanctioning choice, in disregard of right, the Court makes the principle of equal protection optional, if not irrelevant.
Pro-life abortion regulators profess to believe that killing nascent human offspring violates their God-endowed right to life. It is therefore an exercise in wrongdoing, not an exercise of right. But is the activity of people engaged in the deliberate, voluntary perpetration of murder entitled to equal protection under the law? Are murderers, in the very act of committing that crime, entitled to do so in conditions sanitized of any danger except to their victims? Yet it is on account of those very circumstances that our common sense clears away the charge of wrongdoing, once facts have been established that make it clear that one acted to prevent the murder of an innocent.
In the Declaration of Independence, the people of the United States acknowledged and appealed to the rule of the Creator, God, to prove the justice of their claim to govern themselves. The first self-evident truth acknowledged in the Declaration is the equality of all God-created human beings. In all of us, the recognition of our humanity depends on the determinations God has made for our existence. Those determinations are, as it were, the lines He draws to give us human form; or, as we might put it these days, the information He provides to structure and direct the distinct activities that make our humanity known.
This gives rise to the laws of our nature by which, as our Creator, God enables us to distinguish human from non-human existence. Insofar as our existence observes these laws, each and every human being answers to the name of humanity. That name is the title by which we are called to give humanity its due, as it appears in ourselves and in others subject to the same vocation. This calling establishes the connection between right and responsibility. Those of us who do what is right with respect to humanity (our own and that of others) make clear by our activities that the title of humanity applies to us; that it is both an accurate description of our way of being, and a token of the self-belonging or self-possession, with which God has endowed us.
The nascent offspring of our humanity do not generally act otherwise than according to the determinations God has made for our existence as human beings. From the moment of conception, they act on the information of God, in which His rule for their existence is proclaimed. With the discovery of DNA, we understand what this means more directly than at any previous time in human experience.
On the other hand, those who do not do what is right according to God’s will for the existence of humanity, deny their own nature. They thereby place themselves beyond the boundaries of respect it entails. So it is with the people who disregard the rule that informs the humanity of our nascent posterity. Insofar as they deny the authority that determines the humanity of the child, they deny their own. Doesn’t this remove them from the purview of the law that insists that all humanity be treated with due care?
Obviously, the regulatory approach puts the professedly pro-life abortion regulators on the horns of a dilemma. If they are right to say that abortion is wrongdoing, then the only appropriate regulation of abortion is to thwart and prevent it. It is a crime against the law of nature such that the practitioners of abortion should be treated as criminals. But if it is appropriate to regulate the practice of abortion, in order to assure the safety of those who practice it, can it still be called be wrongdoing? For wrongdoing is, by definition irregular (from the Latin regula, which is to say, rule). It involves actions that fall outside the rule of law.
“Pro-life” regulation of abortion is therefore an oxymoron. It fails by virtue of its self-defeated reasoning, long before it gets to Court. But once there, its inconsistency has no way of confounding the SCOTUS’s perversely consistent jurisprudence. The SCOTUS has constructed a specious right to abortion. It has done so by construing the enumeration of rights in the Constitution in exactly the fashion the 9th Amendment forbids. But so long as that abuse goes unchallenged, the Court is like a madman who reasons consistently from an insane premise. So it will issue opinion after opinion that rejects any regulation which relies on a concept of equality under the law because, without distinguishing right from wrong there can be no consistent basis for deciding what activity the law should protect and what activity may be arbitrarily withdrawn from its protection.
The Court has to act thus perversely because any reminder of the true standard of right (which is the will of the Creator) dispels the shadows that otherwise conceal the mad premise involved in its pro-abortion opinions. Obviously such reminders of sanity unduly burden the perpetration of wrong. This perverse jurisprudence makes right a matter of arbitrary human will. Wrong becomes right. Male becomes female. Rites that violate humanity are nonetheless protected as rights under the law. Rights that preserve the existence of humanity (such as heterosexual marriage) are equated with sterile, hedonistic, individual self-indulgence.
Meanwhile an impossible burden of proof is placed on those who would mitigate, by regulation, the collapse of administrative standards that occurs when wrongdoing is falsely protected as right. For the regulators cannot assuredly claim there is harm being done without invoking the standard of right. But once invoked that standard obviously requires that the worst harm be thwarted altogether, which the Court’s perverse jurisprudence forbids it to do.
Instead of lamenting the Court’s insanity, pro-lifers must challenge it on the basis of the self-evident truth that is the principle of our existence as a nation. Indeed, our cause will go bereft of its best hope for victory unless and until we commemorate the self-evident truth in America’s Declaration of Independence not just on July 4th, but whenever we have our day in court, be it the courts of law or public opinion. The best way to remember the Declaration is to apply it, without apology or equivocation, in all the battles we are fighting to restore our nation’s law abiding spirit.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.